Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 19

व्याख्या-- 'य एनं (टिप्पणी प0 59) वेत्ति हन्तारम्'-- जो इस शरीरीको मारनेवाला मानता है; वह ठीक नहीं जानता। कारण कि शरीरीमें कर्तापन नहीं है। जैसे कोई भी कारीगर कैसा ही चतुर क्यों न हो, पर किसी औजारके बिना वह कार्य नहीं कर सकता, ऐसे ही यह शरीरी शरीरके बिना स्वयं कुछ भी नहीं कर सकता। अतः तेरहवें अध्यायमें भगवान्ने कहा है कि सब प्रकारकी क्रियाएँ प्रकृतिके द्वारा ही होती हैं--ऐसा जो अनुभव करता है, वह शरीरीके अकर्तापनका अनुभव करता है (13। 29)। तात्पर्य यह हुआ है कि शरीरमें कर्तापन नहीं है, पर यह शरीरके साथ तादात्म्य करके, सम्बन्ध जोड़कर शरीरसे होनेवाले क्रियाओंमें अपनेको
कर्ता मान लेता है। अगर यह शरीरके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध न जोड़े, तो यह किसी भी क्रियाका कर्ता नहीं है।
'यश्चैनं मन्यते हतम्'-- जो इसको मरा मानता है, वह भी ठीक नहीं जानता। जैसे यह शरीरी मारनेवाला नहीं है, ऐसे ही यह मरनेवाला भी नहीं है; क्योंकि इसमें कभी कोई विकृति नहीं आती। जिसमें विकृति आती है, परिवर्तन होता है अर्थात् जो उत्पत्ति-विनाशशील होता है, वही मर सकता है।
'उभौ तौ न विजानीतो नायं हन्ति न हन्यते'-- वे दोनों ही नहीं जानते अर्थात् जो इस शरीरीको मारनेवाला मानता है, वह भी ठीक नहीं जानता और जो इसको मरनेवाला मानता है वह भी ठीक नहीं जानता।
यहाँ प्रश्न होता है कि जो इस शरीरीको मारनेवाला और मरनेवाला दोनों मानता है, क्या वह ठीक जानता है? इसका उत्तर है कि वह भी ठीक नहीं जानता। कारण कि यह शरीरी वास्तवमें ऐसा नहीं है। यह नाश करनेवाला भी नहीं है और नष्ट होनेवाला भी नहीं है। यह निर्विकाररूपसे नित्यनिरन्तर ज्यों-का-त्यों रहनेवाला है। अतः इस शरीरीको लेकर शोक नहीं करना चाहिये।
अर्जुनके सामने युद्धका प्रसंग होनेसे ही यहाँ शरीरीको मरने-मारनेकी क्रियासे रहित बताया गया है। वास्तवमें यह सम्पूर्ण क्रियाओंसे रहित है।
सम्बन्ध -- यह शरीरी मरनेवाला क्यों नहीं है इसके उत्तरमें कहते हैं

जो तू मानता है कि मेरेद्वारा युद्धमें भीष्मादि मारे जायँगे मैं ही उनका मारनेवाला हूँ यह तेरी बुद्धि ( भावना ) सर्वथा मिथ्या है। कैसे जिसका वर्णन ऊपरसे आ रहा है इस आत्माको जो मारनेवाला समझता है अर्थात् हननक्रियाका कर्ता मानता है और जो दूसरा ( कोई ) इस आत्माको देहके नाशसे मैं नष्ट हो गया ऐसे नष्ट हुआ मानता है अर्थात् हननक्रियाका कर्म मानता है। वे दोनों ही अहंप्रत्ययके विषयभूत आत्माको अविवेकके कारण नहीं जानते। अभिप्राय यह कि जो शरीरके मरनेसे आत्माको मैं मारनेवाला हूँ मैं मारा गया हूँ इस प्रकार जानते हैं वे दोनों ही आत्मस्वरूपसे अनभिज्ञ हैं। क्योंकि यह आत्मा विकाररहित होनेके कारण न तो किसीको मारता है और न मारा जाता है अर्थात् न तो हननक्रियाका कर्ता होता है और न कर्म होता है।

Some explain that in "avināśi tu tadviddhi" (2.17), the first half supports the meaning of the word "Tat" (That), and the second half refutes atheism or the theory of transformation, and the statement "antavanta" (2.18) etc. is to demonstrate that the appearance of birth etc. in the Self is merely figurative.

(The commentator implies): Let this also be an approach. To refute the notion that the meaning of the Gita-shastra stated so far is based merely on "Utprekṣā" (poetic fancy/imagination) [and to show it is Vedic], the Lord has introduced two Mantras (Verses 19 and 20). Thus, he shows the connection (Sangati) of the two verses with the words—"śokamohādi" (grief, delusion, etc.).

Among them, he states the connection of the first Mantra (Verse 19) with—"yattu" (But what you think...) etc. Objection: "Since this understanding ('I am the killer') is based on direct perception, it is unreasonable to call it false." He raises this objection with—"katham" (How?). Reply: "Since empirical perception is born of ignorance, it is a mere semblance (abhasa); therefore, the understanding created by it is not 'Prama' (valid knowledge)." He refutes the objection in this way with—"ya enam" (He who considers this...) etc.

Having demonstrated the meaning of the Vedic verse "hantā cenmanyate hantum..." (Kathopanishad 1.2.19 - "If the killer thinks he kills..."), he explains it with—"ya enam" etc. "How is there ignorance in one who considers himself the killer or the killed?" Anticipating this doubt, he says—"hantāham" (The idea 'I am the killer' is false). Regarding the point that the knowledge of being a killer etc. is ignorance, he states the reason with—"yasmāt" (Since/Because...). He demonstrates the reason for the absence of agentship (doership) and objecthood regarding the act of killing in the Self with—"avikriyatvāt" (due to being changeless).

To demonstrate the falsity of Arjuna's understanding—"I am their slayer, and they are being slain by me"—He quotes a Vedic verse (Richa) with "ya enam" etc.

(Refutation of opposing view): "However, even if the grief caused by the loss of relatives has been removed by verses like 'aśocyān...' (2.11), there is no remedy for the sin caused by being the agent of their killing; for sin exists even in the killing of a hated Brahmin, even though it is not a subject of grief. Therefore, since the sin of violence would befall me, the agent, and You, the instigator, this statement 'Therefore, fight' is improper"—the attempt (by other commentators) to refute such a doubt using this verse from the Kathaka Upanishad is "vicāryam" (questionable/to be scrutinized).

(Reasoning): Because in this verse, the Sage does not state the remedy that "sin does not accrue to the slayer." Since the "separation from relatives caused by killing" has already been negated by the previous text establishing the eternality of the Self (stating that destruction is absent), the sin caused by that is also thereby prevented; thus, the doubt does not even arise.

(Correct view): "Since, by the logic previously stated, the Self is eternal, all-pervading, non-transmigrating, and always uniform, therefore, suspecting its destruction, your withdrawal from the war (Svadharma) in which you were previously engaged is not proper"—this view aligns with our previous statements. The example (given by opponents) of the "killing of a hated Brahmin" is unequal/inapplicable because, despite the absence of grief, the factor of "hatefulness" does not establish the absence of sin. Furthermore, the absence of sin regarding the killing of the "aggregate" (body) will be stated in the subsequent text explaining the duty of a Kshatriya.

It is not the case (as opponents claim) that the first 19 verses explain "You grieve for those who should not be grieved for" and the 8 verses starting "svadharmamapi..." explain "You speak words of wisdom"—implying that the two delusions (grief and confusion about duty) must be refuted by separate efforts. This is contrary to the context—but let that rest.

(Meaning of the verse): He who knows this Self as the "agent" of the act of killing, and he who knows it as the "object" (karma) of that act—both of them, possessing the intellect that identifies the body with the Self, are deluded; they do not know. The meaning is: Since this Self is distinct from the body, being changeless (avikriya), it is not the agent of the act of killing, and for that very reason, it does not become the object either.

Usage or empirical transaction (vyavahara) is indeed deluded; He states this with—"ya enam" (he who considers this...), etc.

Why? Due to the stated reasons (eternality etc.), this (Self) does not kill, nor is it killed.

Indeed, a reflection (pratibimba) has no action (of its own). It possesses action only through the action of the Original (Bimba). And the Shruti also says: "It seems to meditate, (it seems to move)..." (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.3.7).

Objection: By the logic 'Of the unreal there is no being,' since the unreal elements (mātrā) etc. are false and thus devoid of intrinsic nature, doership is not possible for them. Therefore, doership and the state of experiencing bondage and liberation must be asserted for the Real (Sat) alone. Otherwise, bondage would be in the inner organ and liberation in the Self—thus there would be a discrepancy of locus (vaiyadhikaraṇya) between the two. Also, by 'by Whom all this is pervaded,' the Real is stated to be the material cause of the body etc. And thus, for every single entity, both doership and object-ship in the act of killing would result, and that is contradictory. Because action of oneself upon oneself is impossible. Indeed, it is not proper to say 'fire burns fire.' Anticipating this doubt, He says—'ya enam' (he who this...), etc. He, the Logician etc., who thinks of this Self as the slayer—the agent of the act of killing; and he, the Charvaka etc., who thinks of this as slain—become the object of the act of killing; both of them do not know. 'The truth of the Self'—is the remainder. Because this one neither kills nor is killed. For he who is the agent is not the Self, nor is the body the Self; because their nature as non-Self has been determined earlier. The idea is this: Just as in an iron ball, the burning power is only due to the connection with fire and not intrinsic; so too, doership, which is concomitant with the rise of elements (mātrā) etc., is the property of the elements etc. alone, not of the Self. In the Self, the perception of doership is only due to the connection with elements etc. Therefore, bondage belongs only to the one qualified by elements etc., not to the Absolute. And liberation is merely the separation from elements etc.; thus there is no discrepancy of locus between bondage and liberation. Nor is there 'naturelessness' of the elements etc.; for their (empirical) nature is accepted as indescribable as existent or non-existent, fit for transaction, sublatable only by knowledge of Brahman, and comparable to dream, magic, city of Gandharvas, etc. Therefore, doership is not a property of the Self. As it is said: 'If the Self is of the nature of agent etc., then do not hope for liberation. For the nature of entities cannot be reversed, like the heat of the sun.' Moreover, doership is possible only for one possessing modifications like attachment and aversion; and one possessing that is miserable; thus the experienced 'witness-hood' of the Self would be contradicted. As it is said: 'Without change, one cannot be miserable; what is the witness-hood of the changing? I am the witness of thousands of mental modifications, therefore I am changeless.' Nor is object-ship in the act of killing possible for the Real due to being the material cause of the body etc.; because the doctrine of 'Vivarta' (apparent transformation) is accepted. For indeed, no modification is seen in the substratum due to the properties of the superimposed. As stated in the Bhashya: 'Where whatever is superimposed, the Real is not connected with its quality or defect even by an atom.' And this has been explained by the ancients: 'The barren land does not carry the river flowing with mirage-water; nor does that river, filled with a flood of mirage-water, touch the barren land.' By this, since doership and object-ship are properties of the non-Self, and the non-Self is multiform, the raising of the contradiction of both being in the one Self is also to be understood as refuted. Thus, the views of 'body as Self' and 'agent as Self' accepted by Charvaka and Tarkika—by the Mantra stated in the Kathaka (Katha Upanishad 1.2.19) 'If the slayer thinks he kills, if the slain thinks he is slain; both of them do not know, this one neither kills nor is killed'—which is recited here with a variation in the first half—should be understood as refuted.

"Enam"—regarding this Self of the stated nature (eternal)—he who thinks of it as "hantāram"—meaning the cause of killing; and he who thinks of "enam" (this Self) as "hatam" (killed) by any cause whatsoever; "tau ubhau" (both of them) do not know.

Because of its eternality established by the stated reasons, this (Self) does not become the cause of killing (slayer); and for this very reason, this Self is not killed.

The verbal root "hanti" (to kill), even when having the Self as its object, denotes "causing separation from the body" (not destruction of the soul). Scriptures like "Do not harm all beings," "A Brahmin should not be killed" (Katha Samhita 8.2), etc., also refer to the subject of causing separation from the body that is "avihita" (not enjoined/unlawful).

Thus, the grief caused by the death of Bhishma and others has been removed.

And the sorrow that was expressed regarding the Self being a slayer—with words like "I do not wish to kill them" (1.35) etc.—that too is similarly causeless; this He states with—"ya enam" (he who considers this...), etc. "Enam" means this Self.

The meaning is that in the act of killing, the Self has neither "object-hood" (being the killed) nor "agent-hood" (being the killer).

The reason for this is—"nāyam" (this [Self] neither kills...).

Now, clarifying what was stated in the verse "avināśi tu" (2.17) and what will be elaborated in "nainam chindanti" (2.23)—namely, the incapacity of weapons etc. to be agents of killing and the incapacity of the Self to be the object of killing—He strengthens this by criticizing the one who knows the contrary, with "ya enam" etc.

To remove the delusion of "sāmānādhikaraṇya" (viewing the body and soul as identical/co-referential), the word "prati" (regarding the Self) is used. Regarding "hantāram" (the slayer): Since the word ends in the tṛn suffix, the accusative "enam" is used instead of the genitive, because the rule "lokāvyayaniṣṭhākhalarthatṛnām" (Ashtadhyayi 2.3.69) prohibits the genitive case in connection with a kṛt suffix here.

"Hanana-hetum" (cause of killing)—the suffix here is intended merely to denote the "cause" (agent). To indicate that the masculine gender is justified by referring to the intended entity similar to the previous statement "na kaścit kartum arhati" (2.17), the gloss "kam api" (anyone) is used. Meaning, regarding causes of cutting etc., he considers "anyone" (as the slayer).

Objection: To avoid confusion with another proposition (from Katha Upanishad 1.2.19: "If the slayer thinks he slays..."), He explains with—"uktaiḥ" (by the stated reasons) etc. "Asya nityatvāt" (Due to its eternality): The idea is that even something capable of an action does not proceed against an object unfit for that action. "Enam" is pulled from the previous sentence. "Ata eva ca" (And for this very reason): The idea is that since there is an absence of the cause (slayer) due to unsuitability, there is an absence of the result, which is the state of being the object of that action (being killed).

"Ayam hanana-hetuḥ" (This is the cause of killing) and "Ayam ātmā" (This is the Self)—since the word "ayam" (this) is used in both places, this word uttered in "tantra" (simultaneously serving two purposes) conveys both the agent and the object, based on the difference in intention regarding "hanti" (kills) and "hanyate" (is killed).

(Question): How then do we account for common usage like "He kills a man"? For that (killing) does not concern the killing of the body alone; otherwise, there would be no usage or censure like "patricide, matricide" regarding those who destroy a dead body (in cremation). And it is our (Vishishtadvaita) doctrine that words like "man" etc. culminate in the Self (Atman). In usages like "He wants to kill me," the Self is clearly the object of the verb "to kill. " Therefore, when violence occurs, the sentient being alone is the object of the root "hanti."

In that case, both statements "he does not kill, nor is he killed" become untenable. Anticipating this doubt, He says—"hanti-dhātuḥ" (the root 'han'), etc. By saying "ātma-karmakaḥ" (having the Self as object), the doubt is indicated. (Answer): It is true that the root "hanti" inherently takes the Self as its object; however, it does not denote the "destruction of the essential nature" of the Self, but rather "māraṇa" (killing/death). And such is the usage in the world and the Veda. "Māraṇa" consists of "separation from the body etc." The idea is that the grammatical rule teaches "mṛṅ prāṇatyāge" (the root mṛṅ is used for abandoning life-force).

Thus, worldly usage is substantiated. (Question): What is the meaning of the scriptural injunction "na hiṃsyāt sarvā bhūtāni" (Do not harm all beings)? Whatever it may be, since it is forbidden generally and specifically, it (killing) should not be done? Anticipating this, He says—"na hiṃsyāt" etc. (Answer): Either by the logic of "general rule and exception" (utsarga-apavāda) according to the process accepted by others (Mimamsakas); or, according to our own view—since causing separation from the body when "ordained" (by scripture) is actually "most beneficial" for the animal (in sacrifice) or the enemy (in battle), there is an absence of the very quality of "Hiṃsā" (violence/harm). This is the meaning.

आत्मा नित्य अविकारी होने से न मारी जाती है और न ही वह किसी को मारती है । शरीर के नाश होने से जो आत्मा को मरी मानने हैं या जो उसको मारने वाली समझते हैं वे दोनों ही आत्मा के वास्तविक स्वरूप को नहीं जानते और व्यर्थ का विवाद करते हैं। जो मरता है वह शरीर है और मैं मारने वाला हूँ यह भाव अहंकारी जीव का है। शरीर और अहंकार को प्रकाशित करने वाली चैतन्य आत्मा दोनों से भिन्न है। संक्षेप में इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि आत्मा न किसी क्रिया का कर्त्ता है और न किसी क्रिया का विषय अर्थात् उस पर किसी प्रकार की क्रिया नहीं की जा सकती।आत्मा किस प्रकार अविकारी है इसका उत्तर अगले श्लोक में दिया गया है।

"Antavanta" (2.18)—etc. "Dehāḥ"—The bodies are "nirupākhyātākala" (of indefinable time/illusory nature), possessed of "gross destruction," and are perishable precisely because they cannot be explained otherwise; they undergo a change of state every moment. As it is said: "Seeing the old age (purāṇatā) at the end, the loss of newness is inferred at every moment."

The Sage (Vyasa in Mahabharata) also said: "The variation of the 'kalās' (parts/aspects) of distinct objects occurs moment by moment. It exists in all entities, but due to subtlety, it is not clearly perceived." (Shanti Parva, Mokshadharma 308.121). "Of distinct objects"—meaning those that perform distinct purposive functions (arthakriya). (Thus) bodies are "antavantaḥ" (have an end) and are perishable.

But the Self is eternal because it is "aprameya" (immeasurable/not an object). Modifiability belongs to the "prameya" (object) which is inert; not to the "non-inert" (conscious subject) which is of the single form of Consciousness, because the association with a "different nature" is impossible for it.

Thus, bodies are "eternally perishable," so they cannot be grieved for. The Self is "eternally indestructible," so it is not worthy of grief. By the method of "Tantra" (using one word to convey two meanings), the Sage has shown this one suffix of potentiality (kṛtya-pratyaya) in "aśocyān" (those not to be grieved for - 2.11) as applying to both meanings (bodies and Self).

'Ya enam' etc. (Objection): 'Why is the eternality of the Self stated again?' Therefore, the purport is not in the propounding of its eternality; but if the eternality of the Self is determined, then what is the status of the 'usage of killing' (hanana-vyavahāra)? Anticipating this doubt, 'its erroneous nature is stated by this'—he says 'vyavahārastu' (but the usage), etc. 'Vyavahāra' here means knowledge. (Objection): Still, 'he neither kills nor is killed' is indeed a repetition? (Answer): No, because the validity of cognitions is removed only by a sublater (bādhaka). (Objection): By what sublater is its erroneous nature (established)? Anticipating this—since the stated reasons which establish one's own view also function in sublating this (usage), this (verse) is to show that operation—he says 'kuta' (how/why), etc. Objection: Here killing is one only, so how 'both'? And in any way 'he neither kills nor is killed' (how is this)? If it is said: 'the distinction is just due to the difference of factors (kāraka) of the single action,' then the mention of instrument (karaṇa) and locus (adhikaraṇa) would also be contingent? (Answer): It is said—Like the eternality of the Self, its 'non-independence' (asvātantrya) was also propounded earlier. As stated in the 'Tatparya Nirnaya': 'There, like the usage of killing, the usage of independence is also stated to be erroneous by this'—so 'both' etc. is reasonable. Therefore, the Bhashyakara said 'vyavahārastu' generally, and not specifically as 'usage of killing.' Objection: Regarding eternality, reasons like eternality of the Bimba etc. were stated; but regarding non-independence, none was stated; so how is it said 'from the stated reasons'? (Answer): No, because 'reflection-hood' (pratibimbatva) was stated. How is that a reason for non-independence? To this he says—'na hi' (not indeed), etc. By saying 'kriyā' (action), it is indicated that the two words 'hantāram' (slayer) and 'hanti' (kills) are for implication (upalakṣaṇa). Objection: In the world, action is seen even in a reflection; and in the absence of action in the Jiva, there would be contradiction with 'The agent, on account of the scripture having a purport' (Brahma Sutra 2.3.33), etc.? To this he says—'sa hi' (for he), etc. By the action of the Bimba, meaning action dependent on the Bimba. And thus, it should be understood that the prohibition of action earlier was 'relative to the absence of independence.' Objection: Action occurs in the reflection also due to the action of the adjunct (upādhi), so how is it said 'by the action of the Bimba alone'? (Answer): Do not say so; because the purport is in the prohibition of independence, and because the Jiva has no adjunct separate (from Ishvara's control). And regarding the Jiva having action dependent on Ishvara, he cites Shruti—'dhyāyatīva' (he meditates as it were), etc. The meaning is Ishvara meditates upon (impels) the Jiva. The word 'iva' is in the sense of 'little' (alpa - limited/dependent).

Objection: "Although the grief caused by the separation from kinsmen like Bhishma has been removed by verses like 'You grieve for those who should not be grieved for' (2.11), there is no remedy for the sin caused by being the agent of their killing. For there is no rule that where there is no grief, there is no sin; because in the case of killing a hated Brahmin, even though it is not a subject of grief, the absence of sin does not follow (sin is still incurred). Therefore, since the sin of violence would befall both of us—me as the doer and You as the instigator—this statement 'Therefore, fight, O Bharata' is improper." Anticipating this doubt,

the Lord answers with a verse read in the Kathaka (Katha Upanishad)— He who knows this "enam"—the embodied Self under discussion, possessed of attributes like invisibility—as "hantāram", i.e., the agent of the act of killing, thinking "I am his killer"; and the other who thinks of "enam" (this Self) as "hatam" (killed), i.e., becoming the object of the act of killing, thinking "I am killed by the killing of the body"—

both of them, due to identification with the body, "na vijānītaḥ" (do not know) this Self which is immutable (avikāri) and of the nature of non-agency (akāraka); they do not know It through discrimination born of Scripture. Why? Because "nāyam hanti na hanyate"—this Self neither kills nor is killed. The meaning is that It becomes neither the agent (doer) nor the object (karma).

Here, although saying "he who knows it as killer and killed" would have been sufficient, the repetition of words is for the ornamentation of the sentence. Alternatively—"He who knows it as the killer" refers to the Logicians (Tarkikas) and others who accept the "agency" (doership) of the Self; and "he who thinks of it as killed" refers to the Charvakas (Materialists) and others who accept the "perishability" of the Self. The construction should be that both of these do not know. The separate mention is to indicate the difference in disputants (schools of thought). Or—the separate instruction is because the subjects are the "extremely brave" (who thinks he kills) and the "extremely cowardly" (who thinks he is killed).

In the first half of the verse, the original Vedic text reads: "hantā cenmanyate hantum hataścenmanyate hatam" (If the slayer thinks he slays, if the slain thinks he is slain...).

Objection: "Even so, since the Jiva (soul) is a part (ansha) of the Lord, how is killing possible (in relation to it)?" To this, He says—"ya enam" etc.

He who considers this Self as the slayer, and he who considers it as slain—both of them do not know.

This Self neither kills nor is it killed.

The purport is that everything happens by My (God's) will alone.

"Ya enam"—He who "vetti" (knows/considers) this embodied Self under discussion as "hantāram"—meaning the agent of the act of killing; and the other who "manyate hatam" (thinks of it as killed)—meaning thinking "I am killed by the killing of the body," thus considering it the "object" of the act of killing; "tau ubhau" (both of them) "na vijānītaḥ"—do not know; due to non-discrimination, they have not realized the Self. Those who understand the Self—which is the object of the concept "I"—as "I am the slayer" or "I am slain" due to the killing of the body, are ignorant of the true nature of the Self. This is the meaning.

"Yasmāt" (Because)—"nāyam" (this) Self "hanti"—does not kill, i.e., does not become the agent of the act of killing; "na ca hanyate"—nor is it killed, i.e., it does not become the object (of killing). This is because it is "avikriya" (changeless).

How is the Self changeless? The second mantra (next verse) explains this.

(In this verse, the Lord) censures the one who considers the Self to be the "agent" or "object" of the act of killing—with "ya enam" (he who considers this...), etc.

Since the root "hanti" (to kill) denotes causing the separation of a body that possesses parts, therefore "this Self neither kills nor is it killed."

Scriptural injunctions like "Do not harm all beings" etc., are also justifiable (only) from the standpoint of viewing the body (as the self).

यः he who? एनम् this (Self)? वेत्ति knows? हन्तारम् slayer? यः he who? च and? एनम् this? मन्यते thinks? हतम् slain? उभौ both? तौ those? न not? विजानीतः know? न not? अयम् this? हन्ति slays? न not? हन्यते is slain.Commentary -- The Self is nondoer (Akarta) and as It is immutable? It is neither the agent nor the object of the act of slaying. He who thinks I slay or I am slain with the body or the Ahamkara (ego)? he does not really comprehend the true nature of the Self. The Self is indestructible. It exists in the three periods of time. It is Sat (Existence). When the body is destroyed? the Self is not destroyed. The body has to undergo change in any case. It is inevitable. But the Self is not at all affected by it. Verses 19? 20? 21? 23 and 24 speak of the immortality of the Self or Atman. (Cf.XVIII.17)

But the ideas that you have, 'Bhisma and others are neing killed by me in war; I am surely their killer' this idea of yours is false. How? Yah, he who; vetti, thinks; of enam, this One, the embodied One under consideration; as hantaram, the killer, the agent of the act of killing; ca, and; yah, he who, the other who; manyate, thinks; of enam, this One; as hatam, the killed (who thinks) 'When the body is killed, I am myself killed; I become the object of the act of killing'; ubhau tau, both of them; owing to non-discrimination, na, do not; vijanitah, know the Self which is the subject of the consciousness of 'I'. The meaning is: On the killing of the body, he who thinks of the Self ( the content of the consciousness of 'I' ) [The Ast. omits this phrase from the precedig sentence and includes it in this place. The A.A. has this phrase in both the places.-Tr.] as 'I am the killer', and he who thinks, 'I have been killed', both of them are ignorant of the nature of the Self. For, ayam, this Self; owing to Its changelessness, na hanti, does not kill, does not become the agent of the act of killing; na hanyate, nor is It killed, i.e. It does not become the object (of the act of killing).
The second verse is to show how the Self is changeless:

With regard to "This" viz., the self, whose nature has been described above, he who thinks of It as the slayer, i.e., as the cause of slaying, and he who thinks 'This' (self) as slain by some cause or other - both of them do not know. As this self is eternal for the reasons mentioned above, no possible cause of destruction can slay It and for the same reason, It cannot be slain. Though the root 'han' (to slay) has the self for its object, it signifies causing the separation of the body from the self and not destruction of the self. Scriptural texts like 'You shall not cause injury to beings' and 'The Brahmana shall not be killed'? (K. Sm. 8.2) indicate unsanctioned actions, causing separation of the body from the self. [In the above otes, slaughter in an ethical sense is referred to, while the text refers to killing or separating the self from the body in a metaphsyical sense. This is made explicit in the following verse].