Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 18

व्याख्या -- 'अनाशिनः'-- किसी कालमें, किसी कारणसे कभी किञ्चिन्मात्र भी जिसमें परिवर्तन नहीं होता, जिसकी क्षति नहीं होती, जिसका अभाव नहीं होता, उसका नाम 'अनाशी' अर्थात् अविनाशी है।
'अप्रमेयस्य'-- जो प्रमा-(प्रमाण-)का विषय नहीं है अर्थात् जो अन्तःकरण और इन्द्रियोंका विषय नहीं है, उसको 'अप्रमेय' कहते हैं।
जिसमें अन्तःकरण और इन्द्रियाँ प्रमाण नहीं होतीं, उसमें शास्त्र और सन्त-महापुरुष ही प्रमाण होते हैं, शास्त्र और सन्त-महापुरुष उन्हींके लिये प्रमाण होते हैं, जो श्रद्धालु हैं। जिसकी जिस शास्त्र और सन्तमें श्रद्धा होती है, वह उसी शास्त्र और सन्तके वचनोंको मानता है। इसलिये यह तत्त्व केवल श्रद्धाका विषय है, (टिप्पणी प0 58.1) प्रमाणका विषय नहीं।
शास्त्र और सन्त किसीको बाध्य नहीं करते कि तुम हमारेमें श्रद्धा करो। श्रद्धा करने अथवा न करनेमें मनुष्य स्वतन्त्र है। अगर वह शास्त्र और सन्तके वचनोंमें श्रद्धा करेगा, तो यह तत्त्व उसकी श्रद्धाका विषय है; और अगर वह श्रद्धा नहीं करेगा, तो यह तत्त्व उसकी श्रद्धाका विषय नहीं है।
'नित्यस्य'-- यह नित्य-निरन्तर रहनेवाला है। किसी कालमें यह न रहता हो--ऐसी बात नहीं है अर्थात् यह सब कालमें सदा ही रहता है।
'अन्तवन्त इमे देहा उक्ताः शरीरिणः'-- इस अविनाशी, अप्रमेय और नित्य शरीरीके सम्पूर्ण संसारमें जितने भी शरीर हैं, वे सभी अन्तवाले कहे गये हैं। अन्तवाले कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि इनका प्रतिक्षण अन्त हो रहा है। इनमें अन्तके सिवाय और कुछ है ही नहीं, केवल अन्त-ही-अन्त है।
उपर्युक्त पदोंमें शरीरीके लिये तो एकवचन दिया है और शरीरोंके लिये बहुवचन दिया है। इसका एक कारण तो यह है कि प्रत्येक प्राणीके स्थूल, सूक्ष्म और कारण--ये तीन शरीर होते हैं। दूसरा कारण यह है कि संसारके सम्पूर्ण शरीरोंमें एक ही शरीरी व्याप्त है। आगे चौबीसवें श्लोकमें भी इसको 'सर्वगतः' पदसे सबमें व्यापक बतायेंगे। यह शरीरी तो अविनाशी है और इसके कहे जानेवाले सम्पूर्ण शरीर नाशवान् हैं। जैसे अविनाशीका कोई विनाश नहीं कर सकता, ऐसे ही नाशवान्को कोई अविनाशी नहीं बना सकता। नाशवान्का तो विनाशीपना ही नित्य रहेगा अर्थात् उसका तो नाश ही होगा।
विशेष बात
यहाँ 'अन्तवन्त इमे देहाः' कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि ये जो देह देखनेमें आते हैं, ये सब-के-सब नाशवान् हैं। पर ये देह किसके हैं? 'नित्यस्य', 'अनाशिनः'-- ये देह नित्यके हैं, अविनाशीके हैं। तात्पर्य है कि नित्य-तत्त्वने, जिसका कभी नाश नहीं होता, इनको अपना मान रखा है। अपना माननेका अर्थ है कि अपनेको शरीरमें रख दिया और शरीरको अपनेमें रख लिया। अपनेको शरीरमें रखनेसे 'अहंता' अर्थात् 'मैं'-पन पैदा हो गया और शरीरको अपनेमें रखनेसे ममता अर्थात् मेरापन पैदा हो गया।
यह स्वयं जिन-जिन चीजोंमें अपनेको रखता चला जाता है, उन-उन चीजोंमें 'मैं'-पन होता ही चला जाता है; जैसे--अपनेको धनमें रख दिया तो 'मैं धनी हूँ'; अपनेको राज्यमें रख दिया तो 'मैं राजा हूँ'; अपनेको विद्यामें रख दिया तो 'मैं विद्वान् हूँ'; अपनेको बुद्धिमें रख दिया तो 'मैं बुद्धिमान् हूँ'; अपनेको सिद्धियों में ख दिया तो 'मैं सिद्ध हूँ'; अपनेको शरीरमें रख दिया तो 'मैं शरीर हूँ'; आदि-आदि।
यह स्वयं जिन-जिन चीजोंको अपनेमें रखता चला जाता है, उन-उन चीजोंमें 'मेरा'-पन होता ही चला जाता है; जैसे--कुटुम्बको अपनेमें रख लिया तो 'कुटुम्ब मेरा है'; धनको अपनेमें रख लिया तो 'धन मेरा है'; बुद्धिको अपनेमें रख लिया तो ;बुद्धि मेरी है'; शरीरको अपनेमें रख लिया तो 'शरीर मेरा है'; आदि-आदि।
जडताके साथ 'मैं' और 'मेरा'-पन होनेसे ही मात्र विकार पैदा होते हैं। तात्पर्य है कि शरीर और मैं (स्वयं)--दोनों अलग-अलग हैं, इस विवेकको महत्त्व न देनेसे ही मात्र विकार पैदा होते हैं। परन्तु जो इस विवेकको आदर देते हैं महत्व देते हैं वे पण्डित होते हैं। ऐसे पण्डितलोग कभी शोक नहीं करते; क्योंकि सत् सत् ही है और असत् असत् ही है--इसका उनको ठीक अनुभव हो जाता है।
'तस्मात् (टिप्पणी प0 58.2) युध्यस्व'-- भगवान् अर्जुनके लिये आज्ञा देते हैं कि सत्-असत् को ठीक समझकर तुम युद्ध करो अर्थात् प्राप्त कर्तव्यका पालन करो। तात्पर्य है कि शरीर तो अन्तवाला है और शरीरी अविनाशी है। इन दोनों--शरीर--शरीरीकी दृष्टिसे शोक बन ही नहीं सकता। अतः शोकका त्याग करके युद्ध करो।
विशेष बात
यहाँ सत्रहवें और अठारहवें--इन दोनों श्लोकोंमें विशेषतासे सत्तत्त्वका ही विवेचन हुआ है। कारण कि इस पूरे प्रकरणमें भगवान्का लक्ष्य सत्का बोध करानेमें ही है। सत्का बोध हो जानेसे असत्की निवृत्ति स्वतः हो जाती है। फिर किसी प्रकारका किञ्चिन्मात्र भी सन्देह नहीं रहता। इस प्रकार सत्का अनुभव करके निःसंदिग्ध होकर कर्तव्यका पालन करना चाहिये। इस विवेचनसे यह बात सिद्ध होती है कि सांख्ययोग एवं कर्मयोगमें किसी विशेष वर्ण और आश्रमकी आवश्यकता नहीं है। अपने कल्याणके लिये चाहे सांख्ययोगका अनुष्ठान करे, चाहे कर्मयोगका अनुष्ठान करे, इसमें मनुष्यकी पूर्ण स्वतन्त्रता है। परन्तु व्यावहारिक काम करनेमें वर्ण और आश्रमके अनुसार शास्त्रीय विधानकी परम आवश्यकता है, तभी तो यहाँ सांख्ययोगके अनुसार सत्-असत् को विवेचन करते हुए भगवान् युद्ध करनेकी अर्थात् कर्तव्य-कर्म करनेकी आज्ञा देते हैं।
आगे तेरहवें अध्यायमें जहाँ ज्ञानके साधनोंका वर्णन किया गया है, वहाँ भी 'असक्तिरनभिष्वङ्गः पुत्रदारगृहादिषु'-- (13। 9) कहकर पुत्र, स्त्री, घर आदिकी आसक्तिका निषेध किया है। अगर संन्यासी ही सांख्य-योगके अधिकारी होते तो पुत्र, स्त्री, घर आदिमें आसक्ति-रहित होनेके लिये कहनेकी आवश्यकता ही नहीं थी; क्योंकि संन्यासीके पुत्र-स्त्री आदि होते ही नहीं।
इस तरह गीतापर विचार करनेसे सांख्ययोग एवं कर्मयोग--दोनों परमात्मप्राप्तिके स्वतन्त्र साधन सिद्ध हो जाते हैं। ये किसी वर्ण और आश्रमपर किञ्चिन्मात्र भी अवलम्बित नहीं हैं।
सम्बन्ध -- पूर्वश्लोकतक शरीरीको अविनाशी जाननेवालोंकी बात कही। अब उसी बातको अन्वय और व्यतिरेकरीतिसे दृढ़ करनेके लिये जो शरीरीको अविनाशी नहीं जानते उनकी बात आगेके श्लोकमें कहते हैं।

तो फिर वह असत् पदार्थ क्या है जो अपनी सत्ताको छो़ड़ देता है ( जिसकी स्थिति बदल जाती है ) इसपर कहते हैं जिनका अन्त होता है विनाश होता है वे सब अन्तवाले हैं। जैसे मृगतृष्णादिमें रहनेवाली जलविषयक सत्बुद्धि प्रमाणद्वारा निरूपण की जानेके बाद विच्छिन्न हो जाती है वही उसका अन्त है वैसे ही ये सब शरीर अन्तवान् हैं तथा स्वप्न और मायाके शरीरादिकी भाँति भी ये सब शरीर अन्तवाले हैं। इसलिये इस अविनाशी अप्रमेय शरीरधारी नित्य आत्माके ये सब शरीर विवेकी पुरुषोंद्वारा अन्तवाले कहे गये हैं। यह अभिप्राय है। नित्य और अविनाशी यह कहना पुनरुक्ति नहीं है क्योंकि संसारमें नित्यत्वके और नाशके दोदो भेद प्रसिद्ध हैं। जैसे शरीर जलकर भस्मीभूत हुआ अदृश्य होकर भी नष्ट हो गया कहलाता है और रोगादिसे युक्त हुआ विपरीत परिणामको प्राप्त होकर विद्यमान रहता हुआ भी नष्ट हो गया कहलाता है। अतः अविनाशी और नित्य इन दो विशेषणोंका यह अभिप्राय है कि इस आत्माका दोनों प्रकारके ही नाशसे सम्बन्ध नहीं है। ऐसे नहीं कहा जाता तो आत्माका नित्यत्व भी पृथ्वी आदि भूतोंके सदृश होता। परंतु ऐसा नहीं होना चाहिये इसलिये इसको अविनाशी और नित्य कहा है। प्रत्यक्षादि प्रमाणोंसे जिसका स्वरूप निश्चित नहीं किया जा सके वह अप्रमेय है। पू0 जब कि शास्त्रद्वारा आत्माका स्वरूप निश्चित किया जाता है तब प्रत्यक्षादि प्रमाणोंसे उसका जान लेना तो पहले ही सिद्ध हो चुका ( फिर वह अप्रमेय कैसे है ) । उ0 यह कहना ठीक नहीं क्योंकि आत्मा स्वतः सिद्ध है। प्रमातारूप आत्माके सिद्ध होनेके बाद ही जिज्ञासुकी प्रमाणविषयक खोज ( शुरू ) होती है। क्योंकि मै अमुक हूँ इस प्रकार पहले अपनेको बिना जाने ही अन्य जाननेयोग्य पदार्थको जाननेके लिये कोई प्रवृत्त नहीं होता। तथा अपना आपा किसीसे भी अप्रत्यक्ष ( अज्ञात ) नहीं होता है। शास्त्र जो कि अन्तिम प्रमाण है वह आत्मामें किये हुए अनात्मपदार्थोंके अध्यारोपको दूर करनेमात्रसे ही आत्माके विषयमें प्रमाणरूप होता है अज्ञात वस्तुका ज्ञान करवानेके निमित्तसे नहीं। ऐसे ही श्रुति भी कहती है कि जो साक्षात् अपरोक्ष है वही ब्रह्म है जो आत्मा सबके हृदयमें व्याप्त है इत्यादि। जिससे कि आत्मा इस प्रकार नित्य और निर्विकार सिद्ध हो चुका है इसलिये तू युद्ध कर अर्थात् युद्धसे उपराम न हो। यहाँ ( उपर्युक्त कथनसे ) युद्धकी कर्तव्यताका विधान नहीं है क्योंकि युद्धमें प्रवृत्त हुआ ही वह ( अर्जुन ) शोकमोहसे प्रतिबद्ध होकर चुप हो गया था उसके कर्तव्यके प्रतिबन्धमात्रको भगवान् हटाते हैं। इसलिये युद्ध कर यह कहना अनुमोदनमात्र है विधि ( आज्ञा ) नहीं है। गीताशास्त्र संसारके कारणरूप शोकमोह आदिको निवृत्त करनेवाला है प्रवर्तक नहीं है। इस अर्थकी साक्षिभूत दो ऋचाओंको भगवान् उद्धृत करते हैं।

The Real (Sat) has been determined as absolute reality due to the non-deviation of its nature, regarding the Real and Unreal which were treated immediately before. Now, with the desire to determine the Unreal (Asat), he asks 'kiṃ punaḥ' (what then), etc. Suspecting that the question has no scope since it has already been determined that 'the unreal is unreal only,' he says 'yat svātma' (that which is the self of...) to establish the scope of the question by excluding the Void (Shunyavada) and determining the intended Unreal. He says 'ucyate' indicating that the group of non-self, the body etc., is the subject of the word 'asat' under discussion. He rejects their independence with 'nityasya'. He qualifies with 'śarīriṇaḥ' to exclude Akasha (space) etc. He excludes transforming eternality with 'anāśinaḥ'. He states its nature of not being an object of perception etc. with 'aprameyasya'. He says 'tasmāt' (therefore) implying: since the body etc. are unsubstantial and the Self is uniform, there is no possibility of defects like violence etc. for you, even though engaged in your own duty of war.

Anticipating the question "What then is that Asat (Unreal)?", He says—"antavanta" (having an end), etc. Objection: "How can the 'Sat' (Real), which is of the nature of consciousness (sphurana), be indestructible? For consciousness is a property of the body, and the body is subject to destruction every moment." Refuting the 'Bhuta-Chaitanya-Vadins' (Materialists/Charvakas who claim consciousness arises from elements) who hold this view, He explains the statement "nāsato विद्यte bhāvaḥ" (the unreal has no being). The Acharyas (Shankaracharya etc.) did not introduce this verse in this manner (as a refutation of materialists) because they considered that the discrimination between the Body and Self had already been stated in verses like "na tvevāham" (2.12) using the word "tu" (but/indeed).

"Antaḥ" (End) means those for whom there is "bādhah" (sublation/negation) upon the realization of Truth; they are "antavantaḥ" (finite/having an end). Just as silver imagined in a shell is sublated by the knowledge of the shell, similarly, these gross bodies etc., perceived due to delusion, are "bodies" of the Eternal, Unsublatable One who possesses the causal body etc. through superimposition. The plural "bodies" also implies the inclusion of causes like heat/cold etc. Or, the plural is used because bodies are many.

Anticipating the doubt that bodies might have empirical permanence like the earth etc., He says—"anāśinaḥ" (of the Indestructible). Of the Absolute Eternal One, spoken of by the wise. "Aprameyasya" (of the Immeasurable)—meaning, because He is devoid of form etc., there is no grasp of invariable concomitance (vyapti); because no other similar instance can be described; because there is no basis for the application of words (pravritti-nimitta); because there is no impossibility of anything in His absence (to prove Him by presumption); and because He lacks the property of non-existence—He is "aparicchedya" (not determinable/limitable) by perception and other proofs (pramanas).

Alternatively—The search for proof applies only to an unknown object. But the Self is indeed known and is distinct from the body; for the "anusandhāna" (continuous connection/recognition) is seen in all living beings as "The same 'I' who experienced parents in childhood, am experiencing grandchildren now." In a dream, having assumed a divine body and enjoyed appropriate pleasures, upon waking and obtaining a human body, one realizes "I am a human, not a god"—thus, even when the divine body is sublated, the Self which is the locus of "I" is not sublated. Also, through the power of Yoga, even when the body changes into that of a lion etc., the Self is known as identical/unchanging. Similarly, the Self is known by all as distinct from the senses too, due to the recognition of the locus of 'I' in "The same I who saw, am now hearing." It is distinct from the Intellect (Buddhi) and Mind (Manas) as well, because they are instruments (karana), and instruments cannot be the locus of agentship. As for the perception "I am thin," etc., it is justifiable (as figurative/superimposed) just like the perception "I myself am distressed" when a beloved son etc. is distressed. Therefore, since the Self is not unknown, it is not an object to be determined by proofs (pramana-paricchedya).

Objection: "How then does Scripture (Shastra) have validity regarding the inner Self? For the Self is self-evident and known, hence not a subject [for instruction]." If this is said, it is true. Nevertheless, the validity of Scripture is justified as the remover of superimposed, root-based non-Self attributes like agentship etc. Thus the Bhashya states: "It is not that one first knows the Self through proof as 'I am such' and then proceeds to determine the object. Nor is the Self unknown to anyone. Scripture is the final proof. It attains validity regarding the Self solely by removing the superimposition of attributes that do not belong to It, not by making known an unknown object." And the Shruti says: "That which is the direct, immediate Brahman, which is the Self..."

Since the Self is eternal and is never destroyed by anyone, anywhere, or at any time, and bodies are certainly destroyed due to their non-eternity—therefore, O Bharata (born in Bharata's lineage), you fight; do not abandon your specific duty (Svadharma) of fighting. This is the meaning.

"Let there be eternality of some body perhaps"—saying "No" to this, He says—"antavanta" (having an end).

"Let it be then, that like the destruction of a reflection upon the destruction of the mirror, there is destruction of the Self (upon the destruction of the body)"—to this He says—"nityasya śarīriṇaḥ" (of the eternal embodied one). The word "śarīriṇaḥ" (of the embodied one) is to exclude Ishvara.

And nor is there any occasional/conditional (naimittika) destruction of it—He says "anāśinaḥ" (of the indestructible). Why? "Because of being of the same form/nature as the Immeasurable Ishvara."

For, indeed, when the proximity of the Limiting Adjunct (Upadhi) and the Original Object (Bimba) is not destroyed, the reflection is not destroyed (merely) by the destruction of the revealer/medium, provided a revealer exists. Here, the Self itself is the revealer because of being Sentience (Chit), and the Upadhi (medium) is indeed eternal. As per the divine statement: "In the attainment of liberation, [the Jiva] remains with an eternal Upadhi; conjoined with that Upadhi which is its very nature and of the form of Consciousness, the Jiva is a reflection of Keshava."

Having thus stated the eternality of the 'Sat' (Self) and the non-eternity of the 'Asat' (body etc.), concluding this topic, He makes him (Arjuna) inclined towards war with—"antavanta" (having an end), etc.

Although in "nāsato विद्यते bhāvaḥ" (2.16), it was stated from the standpoint of Absolute Reality (Paramartha) that 'asat' bodies do not have existence in the three times (past, present, future); nevertheless, for one who has not attained that vision and is following the fear of hell etc., the "finitude" (having an end) of bodies is spoken of with the intention of "empirical reality" (vyavahara), accepting the division of eternal and non-eternal. Thus, there is no fault.

"Nityatva" (Eternality) means "not being limited by Time." And that (quality) belongs even to the Sky (Nabhas/Akasha) in empirical usage; therefore, (to distinguish the Self) it is stated—"anāśinaḥ" (of the Indestructible). Destruction ("Nasha") means non-perception/dissolution; that indeed belongs to the Sky, as the Smriti says: "The Sky merges into the Self." But This (Self) is not like that, hence it is "Anashi" (Indestructible). The meaning is that It is always shining/manifest.

Nor is This (Self) visible like a pot etc., so He says—"aprameyasya" (of the Immeasurable). And the Shruti also states the Immeasurability of the Self: "This is Immeasurable (apramayam) and constant." 'Apramayam' means 'Aprameyam'. And this is to be known from the non-applicability of proofs (pramanas) regarding the Self. As the Shruti says: "By whom one knows all this, by what means would one know Him? Alas, by what means would one know the Knower?" Its fame/established nature is simply due to it being the Inner Self (Pratyagatma). As the Shruti says: "That which is the direct, immediate Brahman, which is the Self within all." And it is said: "Valid means of knowledge (pramana), invalid means, and semblance of knowledge (pramabhasa)—by whose grace/presence these become established, how can there be non-existence/impossibility of That?"

Therefore, O Bharata, fight. The purport is: Since the bodies of Bhishma and others are false (mithya) and non-eternal, they are essentially "already destroyed"; therefore, by withdrawing from killing them, you must not destroy your own Svadharma (sacred duty).

Derived from the root "dih upachaye" (to accumulate/gather), these bodies are "upachaya-rūpā" (of the nature of accumulation) and are "antavantaḥ"—meaning possessed of a perishable nature. For things that are of the nature of accumulation, like pots and the like, are seen to have an end. Of the "nityasya śarīriṇaḥ" (eternal embodied Self)—the bodies, which are aggregates of elements serving the purpose of experiencing the fruits of karma, and which are described by scriptures like "One becomes meritorious by merit" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5), are such that they perish upon the cessation of karma.

The Self, however, is indestructible. Why? "Aprameyatvāt" (Because of being immeasurable). For the Self is not apprehended as a "prameya" (object of knowledge), but rather as the "pramatr" (knower/subject). And thus it will be stated: "He who knows this, the knowers of Truth call him the Knower of the Field (Kshetrajna)" (Gita 13.1).

Nor is the Self perceived as consisting of multiple accumulations (parts). Everywhere in the body, it is perceived uniformly as distinct from the body, as the knower, in the form "I know this." Nor is a difference in the form of the knower perceived based on the difference in location, as is the case with the body etc. Therefore, because of being uniform, being non-accumulative (without parts), being the knower, and being all-pervasive, the Self is eternal. The body, however, because of being accumulative, serving the purpose of the embodied soul's experience of karma, being multiform, and being pervaded/penetrable, is perishable.

"Tasmāt" (Therefore)—since the body is of a perishable nature and the Self is of an eternal nature, neither is a cause for grief. Bearing with patience the harsh contacts of falling weapons etc., which are unavoidable, whether inflicted on oneself or others, begin the action called "War" for the attainment of immortality, without attachment to the results.

He demonstrates the quality of "āgamāpāya" (appearing and disappearing) with—"antavanta" etc. Those which possess "anta"—meaning destruction—are "antavantaḥ" (perishable).

These bodies, characterized by attributes like pleasure and pain, belonging to the "nityasya"—the one who is always of one form—"śarīriṇaḥ"—the embodied one—who is therefore "anāśinaḥ" (indestructible) and "aprameyasya" (immeasurable/unlimited)—are said (to be perishable) by the seers of truth.

Since in this way there is no destruction of the Self, nor any connection with pleasure, pain, etc., therefore, abandoning the grief born of delusion, fight. The meaning is: Do not abandon your Svadharma (own duty).

He introduces the next verse as a substantiation of the proposition made in "nāsataḥ" (2.16). The restrictive particle ("tu" implied) and the word "svabhāva" (nature) indicate that the designation of "asat" (unreal) [for the body] is absolute/invariable.

"Antavantaḥ" (Having an end)—satisfying the expectation for a reason (hetu) for this probandum (sādhya), He explains the etymology of the very word "deha" (body) which denotes the subject (dharmin)—from the root "dih upachaye". The meaning is: "They are of the nature of accumulation," i.e., "having parts" (sāvayava). The idea is that the word "deha" denotes the subject by convention (rūḍhi) and denotes the reason by etymology (yoga). Regarding the instruction of the probandum, He explains the meaning of the stem and suffix with—"vināśa-svabhāvāḥ" (of perishable nature). Here, by the word 'anta' (end), a conclusion or limitation based on investigation or space is not intended, [but destruction is]. And the possessive suffix 'matup' implies an eternal/inherent connection.

He states the invariable concomitance (vyāpti) and the example with—"upachaya" etc. He justifies the perishable nature of the body through Shruti and its implication (arthāpatti) as well, with—"nityasya" etc. The two words "nityasya śarīriṇaḥ" indicate the Shruti and its implication. Anticipating the question "How and by whom is this said?", He satisfies it with—"karma" etc. "Śarīriṇaḥ"—the relationship implied by the 'ini' suffix and the genitive case is shown to be caused by 'Karma', as it is useful for the context.

To distinguish [these bodies] from the bodies of Ishvara etc. which are not dependent on karma, the indication "ime" (these) is used, explained as—"bhūta-saṅghāta-rūpā" (forms which are aggregates of elements). Being an aggregate of many elements is also a reason for non-eternality. "Karma-avasāna-vināśinaḥ" (perishing at the end of karma) is the result of the etymology of the word 'śarīra'. For it is called 'śarīra' because of 'viśaraṇa' (decaying/falling apart). The idea is: Some scriptures mention both the origin and destruction of bodies. Even those that mention only origin dependent on karma would implyingly assert destruction upon the cessation of karma. Thus, by the three words "ime", "dehāḥ", "śarīriṇaḥ", three reasons for the body's non-eternality are stated: 1. Being an aggregate of elements, 2. Having parts, 3. Serving the purpose of experiencing karma-fruits.

He explains the two words "anāśinaḥ aprameyasya" as intending the probability of the probandum (eternality of the Self) and its reason—with "ātmā tu" etc. By establishing eternality as "unworthiness of destruction," there is no repetition between "nitya" and "anāśin"; or it is intended to deny both gross and subtle destruction.

(Objection): "The reason is unestablished (asiddha), because in our (Vishishtadvaita) doctrine, the Self is also an object of valid knowledge (pramā)." To this, He says—"na hi ātmā" etc. Here, the negation of "prameyatva" (being an object), through the exclusion of things like the body whose sole nature is to be an object, culminates in "pramātṛtva" (being the Knower/Subject); for the negative particle here denotes "other than that." Thus, the discrimination between the Field (Kshetra) and the Knower of the Field (Kshetrajna) will be described later—He says "tathā ca". By this, those who explain it as "merely not being an object of knowledge" (Advaitins) are refuted. Here, "prameyatva" culminates in "being an object of enjoyment" (bhogyatva). And its reverse, through the reverse of the previously stated reason of "serving for karma-experience," culminates in "being the enjoyer/experiencer" (bhoktṛtva).

And considering that this (Immeasurability) is also meant to demonstrate the absence (reverse) of the other two previously stated reasons (being an aggregate and having parts), He states their absence with—"na ca" etc. Regarding "having parts," He states the "non-perception of the capable" (yogya-anupalabdhi) with—"sarvatra" etc. The word "sarvatra" here refers to the entirety of the body's parts. By this, it is said that even though the Self is atomic (anu), it is perceived as partless even in the state of transaction delimited by specific limbs causing pleasure or pain, like "I have pain in my foot, pleasure in my head." Or, it means that in infinite bodies of diverse types like gods etc., the Self is nowhere perceived as having parts.

The singular "Aham" (I) indicates the oneness of the Self identifying with one body. If the Self had parts, it would sometimes be perceived as the "possessor of parts" (avayavi), because consciousness would necessarily have to be accepted in each of its parts. If it had parts, it would either be an aggregate of parts or a structure (avayavi); in either case, specific qualities (like consciousness) cannot be established in the whole without being in the parts. (Argument on emergence): "Just as intoxicant power is not established in individual ingredients like yeast but arises in the combination due to special fermentation...?" (Reply): Even if power is unquestionable, this rule regarding specific qualities (like knowledge) cannot be abandoned. Even in the view that knowledge is a substance, it is like the impossibility of brightness in a collection of non-bright objects. And if this were so (multiple conscious parts), then like a society, mutual quarrel, envy, jealousy, punishment, and favor would be perceived within one body. And in the case of extreme pain/destruction of the aggregate, since there would be no experiencer other than the parts, the parts alone would be the experiencers. In that case, one part distinct from the hand-delimited self-part would not recall what the other experienced—there would be no recognition like "I touched with the right hand, now I touch with the left." Nor can this be explained by the rapid movement of the self's parts, for that would lead to the Self being like a pile of powder and the specific aggregate (personality) would not be established. Nor can there be a transfer of impressions (vasanas) like the scent of musk in clothes, for then the fetus would remember what the mother experienced. Nor can "difference-cum-non-difference" (Bhedabheda) explain everything, for its contradictions have been elaborated in the Shariraka Bhashya. Thus, the perception as "I" (unity) is not possible without "partlessness."

By this, the notion that the body, senses, and pranas are the Self is also implicitly refuted.

"Pramātṛtayā"—Even in the state of reflection when the Self is an object, it is indeed the Knower; for at the time of grasping an object, the flash is "I knew," thus referencing its nature as the Knower even at other times. Even when grasping the Self as "I know myself," the status of being the Knower remains firm. "Ekarūpeṇa" (Uniformly)—If it had parts, sometimes one part would flash as the knower and others as non-knowers. There is no rule that multiple conscious parts would operate in knowledge simultaneously.

Now, proving the same by a different approach, He states the non-perception of the capable regarding a heterogeneous aggregate with—"na ca" etc. In bodies made of five elements, a difference in form caused by those elements is perceived in skin, blood, flesh, etc.; not so in the Knower. And the Shruti says: "It is a mass of consciousness alone" (Brihadaranyaka Up. 4.5.13). Thus, to show the four reasons each for the eternality of the Self and the perishability of the body established in the two verses for easy grasp, He compiles them—"ataḥ" etc. "Ekarūpatvena" means being a non-aggregate of elements. "Anupacayātmakatvāt" means being without parts.

(Refutation of logical fallacies regarding the reasons): ...

The probandum here is "immunity from destruction by weapons, fire, etc." which attacks Arjuna's mind. Therefore, there is no fallacy of inconclusive reason (anaikantya) with 'Mahat' (intellect) etc. (which are partless but created, yet not destroyable by swords). By qualifying with "substance," there is no fallacy with qualities like color.

...The usage of "Vyāpakatva" (pervasiveness) should be read as "in relation to weapons etc." as explained by us before (Self is subtler/pervasive relative to weapons); thus there is no fault there either.

In proving body's non-eternality, reasons like "having parts" are qualified by "being material/Prakritic," so there is no deviation with the Lord's form etc.

Conclusion of the logic: The body etc. is capable of destruction by weapons etc., because it is "pervaded" (penetrable) by them. Whatever is pervaded by X is capable of destruction by X. Or: Destruction by weapons is the probandum, and pervasiveness by weapons is the reason. That which is pervaded by weapons is destroyed by weapons, like a banana stem. Akasha (Space) is not pervaded by weapons because "entry into" is intended, and "subtlety" here implies "that which is not obstructed where another is obstructed." The penetrability of Yogis' bodies is removed by special transformation. Therefore, the eight reasons are proven victorious in all eight directions.

Objection: "Why prove the body's mortality which is established in the world? ...Otherwise one wouldn't shoot weapons."

Reply:

आत्मा द्वारा धारण किये हुये भौतिक शरीर नाशवान् हैं जबकि आत्मा नित्य अविनाशी और अप्रमेय अर्थात् बुद्धि के द्वारा जानी नहीं जा सकती। यहाँ आत्मा नित्य और अविनाशी है ऐसा कहने का अभिप्राय यह है कि आत्मा का न पूर्णत नाश होता है और न अंशत।नित्य आत्मतत्त्व को अज्ञेय कहा है जिसका अर्थ यह नहीं कि वह अज्ञात है। इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि जिस प्रकार हम इन्द्रियों के द्वारा विषयों को जानते हैं उस प्रकार इस आत्मा को नहीं जाना जा सकता। इसका कारण यह है कि इन्द्रियाँ मन और बुद्धि आदि हमारे ज्ञान प्राप्ति के साधन हैं वे स्वत जड़ हैं और चैतन्य आत्मा की उपस्थिति में ही वे अन्य वस्तुओं को प्रकाशित कर सकते हैं। अब जिस चैतन्य के कारण इन्द्रियाँ आदि उपकरण विषयों को ग्रहण करने में समर्थ होते हैं तब उसी चैतन्य को वे प्रत्यक्ष विषय के रूप में किस प्रकार जान सकते हैं यह सर्वथा असम्भव है और इसी दृष्टि से यहाँ आत्मा को अज्ञेय कहा गया है। आत्मा स्वत सिद्ध है।इसलिये हे भारत तुम युद्ध करो वास्तव में इस वाक्य के द्वारा सबको युद्ध करने का आदेश नहीं दिया गया है। जिस धर्म की आधारशिला क्षमा और उदार सहिष्णुता है उसी धर्म के शास्त्रीय ग्रन्थों में इस प्रकार का युद्ध का नारा संभव नहीं हो सकता। कोई टीकाकार यदि ऐसा अर्थ करता है तो वह अनुचित है और वह गीता को महाभारत के सन्दर्भ में नहीं पढ़ रहा है। हे भारत तुम युद्ध करो ये शब्द धर्म का आह्वान है प्रत्येक व्यक्ति के लिये जिससे वह पराजय की प्रवृत्ति को छोड़कर जीवन में आने वाली प्रत्येक परिस्थिति का निष्ठापूर्वक और साहस के साथ सामना करे। अधर्म का सक्रिय प्रतिकार यह गीता में श्रीकृष्ण का मुख्य संदेश है।अब आगे भगवान् उपनिषदों के दो मन्त्र सिद्ध करने के लिये उद्धृत करते हैं कि शास्त्र का मुख्य प्रयोजन संसार के मूल कारण मोह अविद्या की निवृत्ति करना है। भगवान् कहते हैं यह तुम्हारी मिथ्या धारणा है कि भीष्म और द्रोण मेरे द्वारा मारे जायेंगे और मैं उनका हत्यारा बनूँगा৷৷. कैसे

That which has been seen by the seers of truth—is it indeed eternal or non-eternal?" Anticipating this doubt, He says—"avināśi" (indestructible) etc.

The word "tu" is used in the sense of "and" (cha).

The Self, however, is indestructible.

'The finiteness of bodies was stated before, why is it stated (here again)?'—to this he says—'bhavatu' (let it be), etc. To state the counter-argument (pratipaksha) to the inference of the Self's eternality—while the opponent confirms that the reason intended by himself (finiteness of body) is accepted even by the Siddhantin—when asked 'Let there be eternality of some body (what is the harm)?', He says 'no'—this is the meaning. To avoid the fault of 'proving what is already proved' (siddhārthatā), 'kasyacit' (of some) is said. Objection: Why does this not lead to 'atiprasanga' (over-extension/absurdity)? Because the qualification 'kasyacit' would be useless. 'Nityasya'—why is the eternality of the Self stated again? To this he says—'astu' (let it be), etc. 'Thus, having established the impermanence of the body as the Siddhantin's view also, then let there be destruction of the Self which is a reflection, due to the destruction of the body which is the adjunct (upādhi), just like the reflection of a face due to the destruction of the mirror'—when such a counter-argument is stated by the opponent, to refute that, He said this—this is the meaning. By this, the sentence-construction 'even so the Self is eternal' is indicated. Because there is no purpose in mere repetition. The idea is: those bodies which are non-eternal are not its adjuncts; that which is the adjunct is not non-eternal. This is what is said by 'ime' (these). And this will be made clear later.

Objection: "How can the 'Sat' (Real), which is of the nature of Consciousness (sphurana), be indestructible? For consciousness is a property of the body, and the body undergoes destruction every moment." Refuting the 'Bhuta-Chaitanya-Vadins' (Materialists) who hold this view, He explains the statement "nāsato vidyate bhāvaḥ" (2.16).

"Antavantaḥ"—meaning perishable. "Ime" (These)—refers to the imperceptible bodies (viewed as objects) which are called "śarīrāṇi" because of being of the nature of 'upachaya' (growth) and 'apachaya' (decay). Because of the plural number, "bodies" refers to all forms: gross, subtle, and causal; named Virat, Sutra, and Avyakrita; both aggregate (samashti) and individual (vyashti). All these are bodies of the "Nityasya"—the eternal, indestructible—"Śarīriṇaḥ" (Embodied One). This Embodied One is the single Self, possessed of a body through superimposed relation, of the nature of self-luminous consciousness, and the related entity. These bodies are described by the Shrutis and Brahmavadins as objects of perception and objects of enjoyment. Thus, in the Taittiriya Upanishad, having imagined the five sheaths from Annamaya to Anandamaya, the substratum of them all, the unimagined "Brahman is the tail, the support" is shown.

Among them: "Virat", consisting of the quintuplicated (panchikrita) five great elements and their effects, is the mass of form, the Annamaya Kosha, the Gross Aggregate. Its cause, "Hiranyagarbha" or "Sutra", consisting of the non-quintuplicated elements and their effects, is the formless mass, the Subtle Aggregate. It consists of the three "foods" mentioned in the Brihadaranyaka: "Name, Form, and Action." Taking the power of action (kriya-shakti) due to being of the nature of action, it is called the Pranamaya Kosha. Taking the power of knowledge (jnana-shakti) due to being of the nature of Name, it is called the Manomaya Kosha. Taking the agency (kartritva) due to being of the nature of Form and the locus of the other two, it is called the Vijnanamaya Kosha. Thus, the one "Hiranyagarbha" acts as the Subtle Body (Linga Sharira) sheath comprising Pranamaya, Manomaya, and Vijnanamaya. Its cause, the Self conditioned by Maya, where all impressions remain in potential, named "Avyakrita", is the Anandamaya Kosha. And it is stated that all these are bodies of the one Self alone: "Of that (former) one, this one is the embodied self."

Meaning, the embodied self of the Pranamaya is the same as that of the Annamaya... the one described as Truth, Knowledge, etc., hidden in the cave. This logic applies to all sheaths. Alternatively, "Ime" (these) implies that all bodies belonging to all living beings in the three worlds are of the one Self. As the Shruti says: "One Deva hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the inner self of all beings..." showing one eternal, all-pervading Self related to all bodies.

Objection: "Eternality means lasting for the duration of time (yavat-kala-sthayitva); thus, even if it is destroyed along with Time like Avidya etc., that definition would fit?" To this He says—"anāśinaḥ" (of the Indestructible). Regarding Avidya etc., which are limited by space, time, and object, even though they are non-eternal being constructed/false, a "figurative eternality" is used in the sense of lasting for the duration of time. This is based on the maxim: "As long as the modification exists, the division exists, as in the world." But for the Self, which is devoid of the three limitations (space, time, object) and is unconstructed, there is no cause for destruction; hence, its eternality is "Kutastha-nityatva" (Immutable Eternity), not "Parinami-nityatva" (mutable durability) or mere endurance through time.

Objection: "Some proof (pramana) must be stated for such an Embodied One; otherwise, being proof-less, it would be non-existent (alika) and the commencement of Scripture would be futile. And the limitation by objects is hard to avoid due to the maxim 'Scripture is the source of knowledge'?" To this He says—"aprameyasya" (of the Immeasurable/Unknowable). The Shruti says: "This is to be seen as one alone, this Immeasurable, Constant one," "That on which the Sun does not shine... by Its light all this shines." The Self is of the nature of Self-Luminous Consciousness. Therefore, for It—the illuminator of all—to be illumined, there is no need for another object-to-be-illumined (i.e., a proof). However, to remove the superimposed ignorance and its effects, there is a need for a specific "Vritti" (mental mode) which is superimposed. Because "the superimposed alone opposes the superimposed," following the maxim "An offering suitable to the spirit (Yaksha)." Thus, Scripture is commenced to generate the specific mental mode that removes all superimpositions. Since the Self is merely dependent on sentences like "Tat Tvam Asi" (for removing ignorance), acts as the substratum of all imagination, and is the illuminator of all objects, it does not become non-existent (tuccha).

Furthermore, Scriptures like "One only without a second... Truth, Knowledge, Infinity is Brahman" demonstrate that even the Scripture itself is superimposed/illusory in deference to its subject matter (the Non-dual Brahman). Otherwise, its validity would not hold.

The Self-luminosity of the Self is established by logic by the Venerable Commentator (Shankara): Where the inquirer has neither doubt, nor error, nor valid knowledge (prama), there exists the knowledge contrary to them (i.e., ignorance)—this is seen everywhere. Regarding the Self, no one has the doubt "Do I exist or not?", nor the error "I do not exist." Therefore, true knowledge of its nature is always present. The Self is the Dharmin (Locus) of all doubts and errors—"Regarding the locus, all are without delusion; regarding the attribute, there is error."

If the Self were "illumined" (like an object), doubts like "Did the knowledge of the pot arise in me or not?" would occur. ... (Detailed refutation of the Logician's view that knowledge is known by an after-knowledge or anuvyavasaya follows).

The Upanishadic view (Advaita) is: The Self is of the nature of self-luminous knowledge itself, not the locus of self-luminous knowledge (as Prabhakaras say), because appearing as an object (karma) contradicts being the agent, and if it were distinct from knowledge, it would be inert like a pot.

The Self, though pure Consciousness, is called Sakshi (Witness) when conditioned by Avidya, and Pramata (Knower) when conditioned by the Antahkarana (mind) with Vritti. The mind goes out through senses, takes the form of the object (pot). In that one mental modification, the Consciousness delimited by the pot and the Consciousness delimited by the mind become one. Then, the Consciousness delimited by the pot, being non-different from the Knower, destroys the ignorance covering the pot and becomes immediate (aparoksha), revealing the pot. The mental modification (Vritti) being very pure is illumined by the Consciousness delimited by itself. Thus, the Mind, Vritti, and Pot become perceptible.

In "I know the pot," though the illuminating Consciousness is one, it is called Pramata in relation to the pot (needing Vritti), and Sakshi in relation to the mind and Vritti (needing no Vritti).

Since the Self is eternal, all-pervading, and immutable as per the above logic; "Tasmāt"—therefore, since your withdrawal from the war (which is your Svadharma) was due to the fear of destruction (of the Self), and that is not proper—giving permission for war, the Lord says—"tasmād yudhyasva bhārata" (Therefore, fight, O Bharata).

Arjuna was already engaged in war; the cause of his withdrawal was grief and delusion. These have been sublated by the knowledge born of inquiry. Thus, "Yudhyasva" is an Anuvada (restatement), not a Vidhi (new injunction), following the maxim "When the exception to the exception is made, the general rule stands" (apavādāpavāde utsargasya sthitiḥ). Some (like Bhaskara) prattle that this command proves the combination of Knowledge and Action (Jnana-Karma-Samuccaya) for liberation. This is incorrect. "Fight" does not imply that liberation is achieved by combining knowledge and action. We will refute this in detail later through the contradictions with the Gita's own words.

Objection: "The destruction of the body etc. is experienced directly; so in what form is it (said to be perishable)?" Anticipating this, He says—"antavanta" (having an end), etc.

"Nityasya"—meaning devoid of birth and death; "Śarīriṇaḥ"—meaning of the Jiva (soul) who has obtained a connection with Maya due to the desire for "Jiva-hood" (individual existence). Of such a one, "Ime" (these)—meaning the worldly, visibly perceived bodies of all like Bhishma etc.—are said to be "antavantaḥ", meaning possessed of an end. This is the meaning.

However, of the "Anāśinaḥ"—the destruction-less; "Aprameyasya"—who cannot be measured/known even by thousands of means; "Bhagavataḥ sambandhinah"—who is related to the Lord; i.e., of the "Bhagavadīya" (the devotee belonging to God) Jiva—the bodies are not "antavantaḥ" (perishable). This is the implied meaning. If He had stated that "everyone's" (body) has an end, there would be a contradiction with previously stated words (regarding the eternal nature of the divine form).

Therefore, specifically to create the knowledge of the difference between them (the worldly and the divine), the Lord used the word "Ime" (These). "Tasmāt" (Therefore)—since there is no possibility of sin in killing these (worldly bodies), "yudhyasva"—do fight. This is the meaning.

"Bhārata"—this address is for the sake of faith in the spoken word, because only one born in a noble family has faith in such a divine statement.

"Anta" means destruction/end; those which possess it are "antavantaḥ" (perishable). Just as in a mirage and similar illusions, the idea of reality persists until investigated through valid proof, and is severed at the end of that investigation—that is its "anta" (end); similarly, "ime dehāḥ"—these bodies—are "antavantaḥ" (perishable) like bodies in a dream or illusion. They are said to belong to the eternal "śarīriṇaḥ"—the embodied one—who is "anāśinaḥ" (indestructible) and "aprameyasya" (immeasurable). "Uktāḥ" means stated by the discriminating ones.

The terms "nityasya" (of the eternal) and "anāśinaḥ" (of the indestructible) are not a repetition (tautology), because in the world, both eternality and destruction are of two kinds. For instance, when a body is turned to ash and becomes invisible, it is called "destroyed." Even while existing, if it transforms into something else or becomes afflicted with disease etc., it is also called "destroyed." Here, by using both "nityasya" and "anāśinaḥ," it is meant that this (Self) has no connection with either of these two types of destruction. Otherwise, the eternality of the Self might be considered similar to that of the earth etc. (which persists through changes); to prevent this, He says both "nityasya" and "anāśinaḥ."

"Aprameyasya" means not a "prameya" (object of knowledge); that is, it is not determinable by proofs (pramana) like perception etc. Objection: "Is the Self not determined by Scripture (Agama) and prior to that by perception etc.?" Answer: No, because the Self is self-evident (svataḥ-siddha). Only when the Self, the Knower (Pramata), is established, does the search for valid proofs arise in the one desirous of knowledge. One does not first establish the Self through proof as "I am such and such" and then proceed to determine other objects. Indeed, the entity named "Self" is never unknown to anyone. Scripture is the final proof/authority; it attains validity regarding the Self solely by removing the superimposition of attributes that do not belong to It, and not by revealing an unknown object. And the Shruti says: "That which is the direct, immediate Brahman, which is the Self within all..."

Since the Self is thus eternal and changeless, "tasmāt"—therefore—fight; do not withdraw from the battle. This is the meaning. Here, the duty of fighting is not being enjoined (as a new commandment); for he (Arjuna) was indeed already engaged in battle but remains silent due to being obstructed by grief and delusion. Therefore, the Lord is merely removing that obstruction. Thus, "fight" is merely an "anuvāda" (restatement of fact), not a "vidhi" (injunction).

The Gita-shastra is for the purpose of removing the causes of Samsara like grief and delusion, and not for inciting action—to serve as a witness to this meaning, the Lord introduces the (following) Vedic verses (Richas). "As for what you think—'Bhishma and others are being killed by me in battle' and 'I alone am their killer'—this understanding of yours is false indeed." How? (This is explained next).

He concludes everything stated so far with—"antavanta" etc.

"Ime dehāḥ" (These bodies) of the eternal embodied one are "antavantaḥ", meaning non-eternal. Whether grief is expressed or not expressed, they are stated to be unstable.

In the scripture, the "Inner Conscious Self" (Antaścidātmā) is indeed indestructible, because being "Immeasurable" (aprameya), it is ungraspable. "Iti"—Therefore, fight.

अन्तवन्तः having an end? इमे these? देहाः bodies? नित्यस्य of the everlasting? उक्ताः are said? शरीरिणः of the embodied? अनाशिनः of the indestructible? अप्रमेयस्य of the immesaurable? तस्मात् therefore? युध्यस्व fight? भारत O Bharata.Commentary -- Lord Krishna explains to Arjuna the nature of the allpervading? immortal Self in a variety of ways and thus induces him to fight by removing his delusion? grief and despondency which are born of ignorance.

Ime, these; antavantah, destructible; dehah, bodies as the idea of reality which continues with regard to water in a mirage, etc. gets eliminated when examined with the means of knowledge, and that is its end, so are these bodies and they have an end like bodies etc. in dream and magic ; uktah, are said, by discriminating people; to belong nityasya, to the everlasting; anasinah, the indestructible; aprameyasya, the indeterminable; sarirnah, embodied One, the Self. This is the meaning.
The two words 'everlasting' and 'indestructible' are not repetitive, because in common usage everlastingness and destructibility are of two kinds. As for instance, a body which is reduced to ashes and has disappeared is said to have been destoryed. (And) even while existing, when it becomes transfigured by being afflicted with diseases etc. it is said to be 'destroyed'. [Here the A.A. adds 'tatha dhana-nase-apyevam, similar is the case even with regard to loss of wealth.'-Tr.] That being so, by the two words 'everlasting' and 'indestructible' it is meant that It is not subject to both kinds of distruction. Otherwise, the everlastingness of the Self would be like that of the earth etc. Therefore, in order that this contingency may not arise, it is said, 'Of the everlasting, indestructible'.
Aprameyasya, of the indeterminable, means 'of that which cannot be determined by such means of knowledge as direct perception etc.'
Objection: Is it not that the Self is determined by the scriptures, and before that through direct perception etc.?
Vedantin: No, because the Self is self-evident. For, (only) when the Self stands predetermined as the knower, there is a search for a means of knolwedge by the knower. Indeed, it is not that without first determining oneself as, 'I am such', one takes up the task of determining an object of knowledge. For what is called the 'self' does not remain unknown to anyone. But the scripture is the final authority [when the Vedic text establishes Brahman as the innermost Self, all the distinctions such as knower, known and the means of knowledge become sublated. Thus it is reasonable that the Vedic text should be the final authority. Besides, its authority is derived from its being faultless in as much as it has not originated from any human being.]: By way of merely negating superimposition of alities that do not belong to the Self, it attains authoritativeness with regard to the Self, but not by virtue of making some unknown thing known. There is an Upanisadic text in support of this: '৷৷.the Brahman that is immediate and direct, the Self that is within all' (Br. 3.4.1).
Since the Self is thus eternal and unchanging, tasmat, therefore; yudhyasva, you join the battle, i.e. do not desist from the war. Here there is no injunction to take up war as a duty, because be (Arjuna), though he was determined for war, remains silent as a result of being overpowered by sorrow and delusion. Therefore, all that is being done by the Lord is the removal of the obstruction to his duty. 'Therefore, join the battle' is only an approval, not an injunction.
The scripture Gita is intended for eradicating sorrow, delusion, etc. which are the cases of the cycle of births and deaths; it is not intended to enjoin action. As evidences of this idea the Lord cites two Vedic verses: [Ka. 1.2.19-20. There are slight verbal differences.-Tr.]

The root 'dih' means 'to grow.' Hence these bodies (Dehas) are characterised by complexity. They have an end - their nature is perishablity. For, jugs and such other things which are characterised by complexity are seen to have an end. The bodies of the embodied self, which are made of conglomerated elements, serve the purpose of experiencing the effects of Karmas, as stated in Brh. U. IV. 4.5, 'Auspicious embodiments are got through good actions.' Such bodies perish when Karmas are exhausted. Further the self is imperishable. Why? Because it is not measurable. Neither can It be conceived as the object of knowledge, but only as the subject (knower). It will be taught later on: 'He who knows It is called the knower of the Field by those who know this (13.1).
Besides, the self is not seen to be made up of many (elements). Because in the perception 'I am the knower' throughout the body, only something other than the body is understood as possessing an invariable form as the knower. Further, this knower cannot be dismembered and seen in different places as is the case with the body. Therefore the self is eternal, for (1) It is not a complex being of a single form; (2) It is the knowing subject; and (3) It pervades all. On the contrary, the body is perishable, because (1) it is complex; (2) it serves the purpose of experiencing the fruits of Karma by the embodied self; (3) it has a plurality of parts and (4) it can be pervaded. Therefore, as the body is by nature perishable and the self by nature is eternal, both are not objects fit for grief. Hence, bearing with courage the inevitable strike of weapons, sharp or hard, liable to be received by you and others, begin the action called war without being attached to the fruits but for the sake of attaining immortality.