Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 20

व्याख्या --[शरीरमें छः विकार होते हैं--उत्पन्न होना, सत्तावाला दीखना, बदलना, बढ़ना, घटना और नष्ट होना (टिप्पणी प0 60.1) । यह शरीरी इन छहों विकारोंसे रहित है--यही बात भगवान् इस श्लोकमें बता रहे हैं] (टिप्पणी प0 60.2) ।
'न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्न'-- जैसे शरीर उत्पन्न होता है, ऐसे यह शरीरी कभी भी, किसी भी समयमें उत्पन्न नहीं होता। यह तो सदासे ही है। भगवान्ने इस शरीरीको अपना अंश बताते हुए इसको 'सनातन' कहा है 'ममैवांशो जीवलोके जीवभूतः सनातनः' (15। 7)।

आत्मा निर्विकार कैसे है इसपर दूसरा मन्त्र ( इस प्रकार है ) यह आत्मा उत्पन्न नहीं होता अर्थात् उत्पत्तिरूप वस्तुविकार आत्मामें नहीं होता और यह मरता भी नहीं। वा शब्द यहाँ च के अर्थमें है। मरता भी नहीं इस कथनसे विनाशरूप अन्तिम विकारका प्रतिषेध किया जाता है। कदाचित् शब्द सभी विकारोंके प्रतिषेधके साथ सम्बन्ध रखता है। जैसे यह आत्मा न कभी जन्मता है न कभी मरता है इत्यादि। जिससे कि यह आत्मा उत्पन्न होकर अर्थात् उत्पत्तिरूप विकारका अनुभव करके फिर अभावको प्राप्त होनेवाला नहीं है इसलिये मरता नहीं क्योंकि जो उत्पन्न होकर फिर नहीं रहता वह मरता है इस प्रकार लोकमें कहा जाता है। वा शब्दसे और न शब्दसे यह भी पाया जाता है कि यह आत्मा शरीरकी भाँति पहले न होकर फिर होनेवाला नहीं है इसलिये यह जन्मता नहीं क्योंकि जो न होकर फिर होता है वहीं जन्मता है यह कहा जाता है। आत्मा ऐसा नहीं है इसलिये नहीं जन्मता। ऐसा होनेके कारण आत्मा अज है और मरता नहीं इसलिये नित्य है। यद्यपि आदि और अन्तके दो विकारोंके प्रतिषेधसे ( बीचके ) सभी विकारोंका प्रतिषेध हो जाता है तो भी बीचमें होनेवाले विकारोंका भी उनउन विकारोंके प्रतिषेधार्थक खासखास शब्दोंद्वारा प्रतिषेध करना उचित है। इसलिये ऊपर न कहे हुए जो यौवनादि सब विकार हैं उनका भी जिस प्रकार प्रतिषेध हो ऐसे भावको शाश्वत इत्यादि शब्दोंसे कहते हैं सदा रहनेवालेका नाम शाश्वत है शाश्वत शब्दसे अपक्षय ( क्षय होना ) रूप विकारका प्रतिषेध किया जाता है क्योंकि आत्मा अवयवरहित है इस कारण स्वरूपसे उसका क्षय नहीं होता और निर्गुण होनेके कारण गुणोंके क्षयसे भी उसका क्षय नहीं होता। पुराण इस शब्दसे अपक्षयके विपरीत जो वृद्धिरूप विकार है उसका भी प्रतिषेध किया जाता है। जो पदार्थ किसी अवयवकी उत्पत्तिसे पुष्ट होता है। वह बढ़ता है नया हुआ है ऐसे कहा जाता है परंतु यह आत्मा तो अवयवरहित होनेके कारण पहले भी नया था अतः पुराण है अर्थात् बढ़ता नहीं। तथा शरीरका नाश होनेपर यानी विपरीत परिणामको प्राप्त हो जानेपर भी आत्मा नष्ट नहीं होता अर्थात् दुर्बलतादि अवस्थाको प्राप्त नहीं होता। यहाँ हन्ति क्रियाका अर्थ पुनरुक्तिदोषसे बचनेके लिये विपरीत परिणाम समझना चाहिये इसलिये यह अर्थ हुआ कि आत्मा अपने स्वरूपसे बदलता नहीं। इस मन्त्रमें लौकिक वस्तुओंमें होनेवाले छः भावविकारोंका आत्मामें अभाव दिखलाया जाता है। आत्मा सब प्रकारके विकारोंसे रहित है यह इस मन्त्रका वाक्यार्थ है। ऐसा होनेके कारण वे दोनों ही ( आत्मस्वरूपको ) नहीं जानते। इस प्रकार पूर्व मन्त्रसे इसका सम्बन्ध है।

To establish that very fact (changelessness), He introduces another mantra "na jāyate mriyate vā vipaścit" (Katha Up 1.2.18) with the question—"katham" (How?). Elucidating the reason by demonstrating the absence of all modifications, He recites that very mantra—"na jāyate" etc. He establishes the negation of the two modifications of birth and death with—"nāyam" (this one... not) etc. The construction (yojana) is: Having come into being, this Self will not cease to be; or, having not been, it will not come into being again. Not only are these two modifications negated here, but the entire group of modifications is negated—He says "ajaḥ" (unborn) etc. Having stated the literal meaning, He states the intended purport—"jani-lakṣaṇa" (characterized by birth...) etc. He excludes the meaning of "option" (for the word 'va') with—"vā" etc. He points out the derived meaning with—"na" etc. He enacts the connection with—"na kadācit" (never) etc. Explaining "nāyam" etc. as the reason for the absence of the final modification (death), He says—"yasmāt" (because) etc. He clarifies what was stated with—"yo hi" (for he who...) etc. The meaning is: In the Self, there is no death because there is no 'coming into being again after having existed'. The reason for the absence of birth in the Self is also intended here—He says "vā-śabdāt" (from the word 'va'). The word-split is "abhūtvā" (having not been). "Dehavat" (like the body) is the counter-example. He establishes the same meaning with—"yo hi" etc. Since birth is absent, the modification of 'existence' (asti) which follows birth is also absent in the Self—He says "yasmāt" etc. Just as the absence of death (due to separation of pranas) proves the absence of "destruction with a remnant" (sāvaśeṣa-nāśa), it also proves the absence of "total destruction" (niravaśeṣa-nāśa)—He says "yasmāt" etc.

Objection: "Since the negation of birth and destruction automatically establishes the negation of other modifications included between them, a separate effort need not be made to negate them." Answer: To this He says—"yadyapi" (although) etc. "Sva-śabdaiḥ" means by words specifically denoting the intermediate modifications. Objection: "When the negation is established by implication (ārhika), a verbal (śābda) negation does not serve a separate purpose." Answer: "Anuktānām" (of the unmentioned...) etc.

Avoiding the repetition of meaning between "nitya" (eternal) and "śāśvata" (constant), He explains—"śāśvata" etc. Since decay (apakṣaya) can be either intrinsic or due to loss of qualities, He posits this option and refutes both in order—with "na" etc. He states that the word "purāṇa" (ancient) has a distinct meaning—"apakṣaya" etc. He clarifies that with—"yo hi" etc.

Anticipating that "na mriyate vā" (or does not die) makes the fourth quarter (na hanyate...) repetitive, He explains—"tathā" etc. Objection: "The root 'hanti' is heard in the sense of killing/violence; so how is 'transformation' (vipariṇāma) being negated?" Answer: "Hantiḥ" etc. Objection: "When the meaning of violence is possible, why is a different meaning desired for 'hanti'?" Answer: "Apunaruktatāyā" (for non-repetition) etc. The meaning is: If the sense of violence (killing) is taken, it would be repetitive with the negation of death. Therefore, to negate that (repetition), the meaning of 'transformation' must be desired. Transformation means abandoning a former state and attaining another; if 'hanti' is desired in that sense here, He states the derived meaning—"na" (no) etc.

He concludes the meaning of the mantra "na jāyate" etc. with—"asmin" (in this verse) etc. The result of negating the six modifications in the Self is stated with—"sarva" (all...) etc. "Even if the Self is devoid of all modifications, what follows?"—Anticipating this, He says—"yasmāt" (since...) etc.

Negating the six modifications of being (bhāva-vikāras) stated by Yaska—"is born, exists, grows, transforms, decays, is destroyed"—in the Self, He establishes its immutability with "na" (no), etc.

The word "kadācit" (ever/at any time) should be connected with all words negating modification. Construction: This Self "kadācit na jāyate" (is never born). Because: "bhūtvā" (having come into being), "bhūyaḥ" (again/later) "punar bhavitā" (it will come to be)—"na" (it is not so). And because: "bhūtvā" (having existed/experienced the act of becoming), "bhūyaḥ" (later) "abhavitā" (it will cease to be) or "abhāvaṃ gantā" (will go to non-existence)—"na" (it is not so); "tasmāt" (therefore) it "kadācit na mriyate ca" (never dies either).

The word "vā" is in the sense of "and" (cha). Alternatively (Another interpretation): This "Nā" (Man/Self), having come into being, "punar bhavitā" (will be again in the future)—"na asti" (is not—i.e., its existence is not dependent on birth); it is not capable of modification, nor does it "become"; this is the meaning. In this view, the second "vā" is also in the sense of "and".

According to the stated method, the word split is "nā, ayam" (Man, this), and the previous "na" (negation) connects with "mriyate". If the split is "na ayam" (Not this), then "asya" (of this) should be understood. However, the Bhashyakara (Shankara) has abandoned this (complex) meaning for the sake of simplicity. Since it is not born, it is "Ajaḥ" (Unborn). Since it does not die, it is "Nityaḥ" (Eternal).

(Refutation of Buddhist view): As for others who suspect—"Let it then be of the nature of the stream of momentary consciousness (kshanika-vijnana), since the Vijnanavadins accept its unbornness and eternality (as a stream)?"—To this He says: "bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ" (having been, it does not come to be again).

"Ayam" (This Self) follows. (In the Buddhist view) it exists having come into being, and then exists again—not that having existed, it exists again after existing many times. The continuity of the same agent implied by the suffix 'ktvā' (in bhūtvā) regarding the duality of the act of becoming is intentional: "having come into being, it exists" (immediately), not that "having come into being, it stays, and then perishes." Because the Logicians' cognition spans three moments (origination, stay, destruction); but for the Vijnanavadins who hold three-moment states, the very moment of destruction of the former is the moment of origination of the latter, and that itself is its moment of stay. Thus, due to the momentariness of cognitions, there is no interval between the two acts of becoming, hence "having been, it becomes."

But "This" (Self) is "not" like that—this is the refutation. (Commentator's note): Those who describe it thus (in a Buddhist way) must demonstrate how they avoid contradiction with the commencement of the negation of modification (since Gita upholds a Kutastha/Immutable Self, not a momentary one). By this, the view "It is unborn because it is ignorant, and eternal because it is unchanging (in a flow)" is also refuted. Since the Bhashyakara has shown "nāyam bhūtvā..." as the reason (hetu), it is appropriate that "na jāyate" etc. are the propositions supported by it.

Thus, having refuted the three modifications of birth, destruction, and existence (as an effect), He refutes the remaining modifications with "śāśvata" etc.

"Śaśvad bhavaḥ" (Always existing)—by this word "Śāśvata", "decay" (apakṣaya) is negated, because it is partless and attributeless. "Purā api abhinavaḥ" (New even though ancient)—by this word "Purāṇa", the modification of "growth" (vṛddhi) is negated. "Hanyamāne śarīre" (When the body is being killed/transformed), "na hanyate" (it is not killed/transformed)—by this the modification of "transformation" (vipariṇāma) is negated.

And thus the Bhashya says: "Here, 'hanti' should be seen in the sense of transformation, to avoid repetition." In this verse, the six modifications of being—which are changes belonging to worldly objects—are negated in the Self. "The Self is devoid of all kinds of modifications"—this is the sentence meaning. "Yasmāt" (Because) it is so, "Tasmāt" (Therefore) it connects with the previous "tau ubhau na vijānītaḥ" (those two do not know).

By this, the view is also refuted that—"Since existence and transformation are included in birth and destruction, they are not negated separately; (and the conclusion is) since the Self is devoid of all these modifications, therefore even when the body is killed, the Self connected to it is not killed nor can be killed by any means." (Reason for refutation): Although the negation of intermediate modifications is established by the negation of the first (birth) and last (death), their specific mention is for the purpose of indicating/implying other states and other actions (so separate negation is meaningful).

Here, He states that there is also scriptural testimony (Mantra-varna) regarding this—"na jāyate" (is not born), etc. Nor is it one that "having come into being, will come to be again," like the knowledge of the Lord. For that [eternal nature of God's knowledge] is established by Shruti and Smriti texts like "That willed/saw" (Chandogya Up. 6.2.3), "[God is free from limitations] of space, time, and state, by Himself or others," and "The Self of unfailing consciousness."

Why? Because of its resemblance to the Lord (Ishvara-sarūpatvāt) who is characterized by being unborn etc. "Śāśvataḥ" means always of one form. "Purāṇaḥ" means he who moves/lives (aṇati) in the city (pura), i.e., the body. Even so, it is not killed even when the body is killed.

"This one does not kill nor is it killed"—regarding this statement, He substantiates the part "is not killed" with the second mantra found in the same text (Katha Upanishad)—"na jāyate" etc. This Self is "na kadācit jāyate"—meaning it is not born as something new. "Na vā mriyate"—nor does it die "niranvaya" (without a trace/total annihilation), like the pot accepted by the Tarkikas (Logicians). Here, there are two reasons in order—"ajaḥ" (unborn) and "nityaḥ" (eternal). Because it is unborn, it is not produced. Because it is eternal, it does not die. This is the meaning.

(Objection): Let it then be of the nature of a stream of momentary consciousness (kshanika-vijnana-dhara), since the Vijnanavadins accept its unbornness and eternality (as a stream)? (Reply): He says "bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ" (having been, it will not come to be again). "Ayam" (This Self) follows. (In the Buddhist view) having come into being, it comes to be again—not that "bhūyaḥ" (repeatedly) having come into being, it comes to be... The continuity of the same agent implied by the suffix 'ktvā' (in bhūtvā) regarding the duality of the act of becoming is intentional regarding the unity of the stream. (But the Self) having been, exists (permanently); it is not that having been and stayed, it perishes. For the Logicians' cognition spans three moments (origination, stay, destruction); but for the Vijnanavadins, the very moment of destruction of the former is the moment of origination of the latter, and that itself is its moment of stay. Thus, due to the momentariness of cognitions, there is no interval between the two acts of becoming, hence "having been, it becomes" is said (by them).

But "This" (Self) is not like that, because it is "śāśvataḥ"—always of one form. Because of the recognition (pratyabhijñā) of the oneness of the Self in childhood and old age, as in "The same 'I' who experienced parents in childhood, am experiencing great-grandchildren in old age." And this recognition is not due to similarity, because (in that view) there is no stable entity to grasp the similarity.

Alternatively—(Refutation of Jains)—Regarding the Arhatas (Jains) who accept the Self to be of the size of the body, and believe in a difference of size for the eternal Self when obtaining the body of a mosquito, human, or elephant in sequence or reverse, and thus accept a "figurative becoming" (aupachārika bhavana) of the existing Self due to the becoming of the attribute (size)—that too is not correct. Because of being "Śāśvata" (constant), eternality is impossible for an object of medium size which possesses growth and decay.

By this very logic, the figurative (bhākta) "becoming" of the Self through the arising of other attributes like pleasure and pain should also be refuted. For, total cessation of suffering is not possible for a sufferer of pain etc. without his own destruction; just as in a pot etc., (destruction of attributes) is not seen as long as the form exists.

(Objection): Unbornness, eternality, and constancy exist in Akasha (Space) too? Hence He says—"purāṇaḥ". It is indeed "new" (nava) even "pura" (before) the creation of Akasha etc. By this, it is shown that "primary" unbornness etc. belong only to the Self because it lacks attributes like decay, whereas that of Akasha etc. is secondary. Therefore, when the body is killed, it is not killed.

In the Bhashya (of Shankara), the word "vā" is in the sense of "and" (cha). Meaning: It is not born and does not die. The reasoning there is: This Self is not one that "having not been" (na bhūtvā) "will come to be" (bhavitā) like a pot etc., therefore it is "not born." Or, the negative particle connects beforehand: "It is not born nor does it die." Since it is not one that "having been" (bhūtvā) will "cease to be" (abhavitā) like a perishable pot, therefore it "does not die." By "Shashvata" and "Purana," growth and decay are negated respectively; thus "na hanyate" is explained as "does not undergo transformation." Some explain it thus: "Na jāyate mriyate" is the proposition; "kadācit" etc. is the substantiation; "ajaḥ" etc. is the conclusion.

By the very reasons stated—due to eternality and immutability—it is said that birth, death, etc., are all attributes of the insentient body and do not belong to the Self. Regarding that, "na jāyate mriyate" (is not born nor dies)—meaning, the birth and death experienced by all in all bodies in the present state do not touch the Self "kadācit api" (at any time).

"Nāyam bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ"—meaning, it is not the case that having come into being at the beginning of the Kalpa (cycle), it will "not be" (cease to exist) again at the end of the Kalpa. The meaning is that the birth at the beginning of the Kalpa and death at the end of the Kalpa, which are found in Scriptures (Agama) regarding certain bodies like that of Prajapati etc., do not touch the Self.

Therefore, the Self present in all bodies is "ajaḥ" (unborn), and therefore "nityaḥ" (eternal). It is "śāśvataḥ" (constant)—meaning, it is not connected even with "indistinct continuous transformations" (aviśada-satata-pariṇāma) like Prakriti (Nature). Therefore, it is "purāṇaḥ"—meaning, though ancient (purātana), it is "nava" (new), always to be experienced as something fresh/unprecedented.

Therefore, even when the body is being killed, "ayam" (this) Self is not killed.

"Na hanyate" (is not killed)—He strengthens this very idea by showing the Self's freedom from the six modifications of being (bhāva-vikāras)—with "na" etc.

"Na jāyate" (is not born) is the negation of birth. "Na mriyate ca" (and does not die) is the negation of destruction. The words "vā" are used in the sense of "and" (cha). "Na cāyaṃ bhūtvā bhavitā"—Nor is it that this Self, "bhūtvā" meaning having been produced, "bhavitā" meaning becomes (attains existence); rather, it is eternally self-existent strictly on its own. This is the negation of the second modification characterized as 'existence following birth'. The reason for this is "yasmād ajaḥ" (because it is unborn). For, he who is born attains existence after birth; but he who exists by himself does not attain another existence again. This is the meaning.

"Nityaḥ" (Eternal)—meaning always of one form; this is the negation of 'growth' (vṛddhi). "Śāśvataḥ" (Constant)—meaning existing continuously/always; this is the negation of 'decay' (apakṣaya). "Purāṇaḥ" (Ancient)—this is the negation of 'transformation' (vipariṇāma). It is "nava" (new) even "purā" (in ancient times), and does not become new by attaining a different form through transformation. This is the meaning.

Alternatively—By connecting "na bhavitā" (will not become) [with "bhūyaḥ"], the meaning is: It does not become "bhūyaḥ"—meaning more/excessive—than it is; thus, it is a negation of 'growth'. In this interpretation, "Aja" (unborn) and "Nitya" (eternal) are the reasons for the absence of both (kinds of) growth; thus, there is no repetition.

So in this way, the six modifications of being stated by the expounders of the Veda like Yaska—"is born, exists, grows, transforms, decays, perishes"—are refuted. He concludes the subject at hand—the absence of destruction—for which these modifications were refuted, with "na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre" (is not killed when the body is killed).

Now, anticipating faults like 'repetition' and 'contradiction with perception' in this verse "na jāyate..."—which is read in Katha Upanishad (1.2.18) and is here qualified only by the single word "kadācit" (at any time)—He explains with "uktaireva" (by the stated reasons alone), etc. By this, the suspicion that this is merely a proposition (without proof) is also refuted. "Due to being eternal and unchanging"—meaning, since it is indestructible, modifications as such are completely refuted.

To explain: "Destruction" is indeed the attainment of another state capable of bearing a different name, after abandoning the previous state. For example, the state of shards (kapala) for a substance like a pot; and the tendency towards that state is its "decay" (apakshaya). That very same state (of shards) is the "origination" (birth) of the substance in the form of shards. Similarly, transformation, growth, etc., should be exemplified. He will state this meaning in "jātasya hi dhruvo mṛtyuḥ" (2.27). Therefore, by refuting destructibility, birth etc. are also implicitly refuted.

"Sarve eva" (All indeed)—This is said to avoid repetition. The word 'eva' here has the force of 'api' (also/even). The idea is that not only is there an absence of "liability to be killed," but there is also an absence of "liability to be created," etc.; thus, there is no repetition.

"Dehadharmāḥ" (Attributes of the body)—The subject of the worldly usage of birth and death, indicated by "hanyamāne śarīre" (when the body is killed), is stated here; the reason for that is "acetana" (being insentient). When it is said "Birth etc. are attributes of the body, not of the Self"—it means that for Arjuna, who erroneously attributes bodily qualities to the Self through perception etc., the "actual nature" of the Self is being discriminatively described by the Upanishadic mantra "na jāyate"; it is not a denial of the (empirical) birth and death defined as the conjunction and disjunction of the body. The word "vā" is in the sense of "and" (cha).

To avoid the repetition of words in the verse, He reveals the specific arrangement established by the use of the present tense etc., with—"tatra" etc. Objection: "If the present tense is intended by 'kadācit', it is redundant because the present tense marker (lat lakara) already conveys it. And if it is to include past and future, the use of the present tense is incongruous." Answer: "Vartamānatayā" (As present) etc. By people of various times, in various bodies, birth and death are experienced indeed as present events—"is born," "is dying." Therefore, relative to that experience, the use of the present tense is justified. By this, all time except the beginning and end of a Kalpa is included by "kadācit". This is the purport.

Regarding "bhūtvā" (having been)—He states what is intended by this reference to past time with—"kalpādau" (at the beginning of the Kalpa). There, the word "bhūyaḥ" refers to the end of the Kalpa. Regarding the two verbs "bhūtvā bhavitā" (having been, will be)—to remove the delusion that the negative particle (na) applies to each separately, He says—"na na bhavitā" (it is not that it will not be). The specific idea "having been, it will not be" is what is negated by the other negative particle. Objection: "Why is 'nāyam bhūtvā...' stated? It could have been covered by 'na jāyate' etc. alone?" Answer: "Keṣucit" (In some...) etc. The idea is: In specific times and specific bodies, Creation and Dissolution are heard of in scripture. And that is not merely connection with or separation from a body. Because of explicit statements like "He created beings in water," "In the earth..." (Mahanarayana Up 1.4); because of the concept of the 'oneness' (of Sat) before creation; because the proposition "by knowing One, all is known" holds true; and because of the volition "May I become many"—(one might suspect) that the very origination and destruction of the essence of the Jiva must be accepted. Thus, to refute the doubt of the theory that "Jivas exist only up to Pralaya," the statement "nāyam bhūtvā..." is made. The answer there is: The "visrishti" (creation) of Jivas is a projection by way of "ensoulment" (providing bodies). The concept of oneness before creation is due to the absence of the division of name and form. "Knowing all by knowing One" is because Brahman, having the subtle sentient and insentient as His body, transforms into the state of having the gross sentient and insentient as His body. And for this very reason, the volition "May I become many" is justifiable. Therefore, even at the beginning and end of a Kalpa, there is only the separation and connection of the body which causes the contraction and expansion of knowledge, and not the origination of the essence again.

"Ajaḥ Nityaḥ" (Unborn, Eternal)—Regarding these two, thinking that there is no repetition because they serve as a summary conclusion of the previously stated meaning, and because they intend the unborn nature etc. of the Self in all bodies by negating birth etc. in those respective times—He says "ataḥ sarvadehagata" etc. "Ata eva nitya" (Therefore eternal)—meaning, because it is devoid of origination, it is devoid of destructibility. With the intention that the word "Shashvata" (Constant) is meant to refute the subtle transformations occurring in states like Pralaya—since the gross transformations of the state of creation have already been refuted in the Self—He says "prakṛtivat" (like Prakriti), etc.

He explains the word "Purana" also by the maxim "One should explain by the similarity of syllables" (Nirukta 2.1.1)—with "purā api navaḥ" (new even though ancient). (Objection): "What is this 'newness even though ancient'? For something unborn cannot ever be 'new'. Even if born, one should say 'it is new now' or 'will be new later'. Newness in the 'past' (pura) is not wonderful?" (Answer): To this He says—"sarvadā" (always). The word "pura" implies the three times; or it implies another time gathered by the word 'api' intended within the compound; or the explanation is based on the contradiction (figure of speech) "new though ancient." The word "nava" here implies "wondrousness" along with newness. He will say "āścaryavat" (like a wonder 2.29) etc. This is the purport. Alternatively—For objects with parts, renewal happens through the replenishment of parts etc.; but since this Self is partless and thus 'un-renewable', it is explained as "new even though ancient" (eternally fresh). He concludes this meaning regarding the subject of Arjuna's doubt—with this intention, He says "ataḥ" (therefore), etc.

इस श्लोक में बताया गया है कि शरीर में होने वाले समस्त विकारों से आत्मा परे है। जन्म अस्तित्व वृद्धि विकार क्षय और नाश ये छ प्रकार के परिर्वतन शरीर में होते हैं जिनके कारण जीव को कष्ट भोगना पड़ता है। एक र्मत्य शरीर के लिये इन समस्त दुख के कारणों का आत्मा के लिये निषेध किया गया है अर्थात् आत्मा इन विकारों से सर्वथा मुक्त है।शरीर के समान आत्मा का जन्म नहीं होता क्योंकि वह तो सर्वदा ही विद्यमान है। तरंगों की उत्पत्ति होती है और उनका नाश होता है परन्तु उनके साथ न तो समुद्र की उत्पत्ति होती है और न ही नाश। जिसका आदि है उसी का अन्त भी होता है। उत्ताल तरंगे ही मृत्यु की अन्तिम श्वांस लेती हैं। सर्वदा विद्यमान आत्मा के जन्म और नाश का प्रश्न ही नहीं उठता। अत यहाँ कहा है कि आत्मा अज और नित्य है।आत्मा में क्रिया के कर्तृत्व और विषयत्व का निषेध तथा उसके बाद तर्क के द्वारा उसके अविकारत्व को सिद्ध करने के बाद भगवान् इस विषय का उपसंहार करते हुये कहते हैं

"Ya enam" etc. He who knows this Self and the body as the slayer and the slain (respectively), possesses ignorance.

For this very reason, he is bound.

Nevertheless, anticipating the objection that 'na jāyate' (is not born) is a repetition, He states that this is not merely the Lord's statement, but rather this 'Mantra-varna' (Vedic verse) is being cited here as confirmation/authority for the stated meaning—He says this with 'atra' etc.

Objection: 'The Jiva (soul), having come into being by its own nature, is indeed one that 'comes to be' (bhavitā) through connection with the body; so how is it said 'having been, it will not be' (bhūtvā bhavitā na)?' Reply: Therefore, He explains it differently with—'na ca' etc. If the Jiva is not born, then—just as God's knowledge, though devoid of growth and decay etc., is spoken of as 'having come to be' through some inconceivable power, serving as a basis for usage—similarly, in the case of the Jiva, what is the cause for the usage of 'birth'? To this question, the answer is given by 'na' (no/not).

Objection: 'Where is it established that God's knowledge 'comes to be' in the stated manner, such that it can be cited to suggest a similar possibility (or lack thereof) for the Jiva?' Reply: To this He says—'taddhī' (For that...) etc. The 'coming to be' of God's knowledge in the stated manner is indeed established by Shruti and Smriti—this is the connection. 'Tadaikṣata' (That willed/saw - Chandogya Up. 6.2.3)—here 'becoming' is mentioned, similar to 'Devadatta saw.' The phrase 'Deśataḥ' (by space...) implies freedom from growth, decay, etc.

Objection: 'Why then was it not simply said 'like God' (īśvaravat)?' Reply: Such a doubt should not be raised, because the perspective of worldly perception would arise excessively there. Objection: ''Ajaḥ nityaḥ' (Unborn, Eternal)—is this not a repetition?' Reply: Anticipating this, and stating that the doubt is to be removed, He explains it differently with—'kutaḥ' (Why/From where?). Meaning: For what reason is it said 'it is not born nor dies'? By 'ajādi' (unborn etc.), the terms 'aja, nitya, śāśvata' are explained.

Objection: 'The term 'śāśvata' is synonymous with 'nitya'?' Reply: He explains it differently with—'śāśvata' etc. The conclusion is: By the two terms 'Aja' and 'Nitya,' it is stated that there are no birth and destruction (in the soul) caused by the origin and destruction of the Bimba (Original/God). And by the term 'Shashvata,' it is stated that there are no birth and destruction caused by the origin and destruction of the proximity between the Upadhi (Limiting Adjunct) and the Bimba.

Objection: 'Even so, having said 'Aja' (unborn), saying 'Purana' (ancient) is a repetition?' Reply: No, because it was said 'having been, it will not be.' (Question): 'Then for what reason and cause is there the usage of 'birth'? Anticipating this, He explains that 'it attains another body'—this is stated by 'puram' (city/body) etc.

Objection: 'Even then, 'na hanyate' (is not killed) is a repetition?' Reply: No. 'If it is 'Purana' (dwelling in the body), then upon the destruction of the body which is the Upadhi—like the destruction of the reflection upon the destruction of the mirror—there would be destruction of the Self.' This doubt is refuted here based on the 'previous intention' (that the reflection is not actually destroyed)—with this idea, He says 'tathāpi' (even so) etc., meaning even though it is 'Purana' (it is not killed).

Why is this Self neither the agent nor the object of the act of killing?—'Because of being immutable'—The Lord answers this with the second mantra. 'Jāyate (is born), asti (exists), vardhate (grows), vipariṇamate (transforms), apakṣīyate (decays), vinaśyati (perishes)'—these are the 'six modifications of being' (ṣaḍ-bhāva-vikārāḥ) according to Vārṣyāyaṇi, so say the Nairuktas (etymologists like Yaska). Among them, the negation of the first (birth) and the last (death) is done by 'na jāyate mriyate vā'. The word 'vā' is in the sense of conjunction (and). The meaning is: It is neither born nor does it die.

Why is this Self not produced? 'Yasmāt' (Because)—'ayam' (this Self)—'kadācit' (at any time)—'na bhūtvā' (not having been/having not existed)—meaning 'prāk abhūtvā' (having been non-existent before)—'bhūyaḥ' (again) 'punarapi bhavitā na' (will not come into being). For that which 'bhavati' (comes to be) after 'abhūtvā' (not having been) experiences the modification characterized as 'origination.' But this (Self), due to existing even 'prāk' (before), does not originate; therefore, it is 'Aja' (Unborn).

Similarly, this Self 'bhūtvā' (having been)—meaning existing before—'kadācit' (at some time)—'bhūyaḥ' (again) 'punar na bhavitā' (will not be)—[this negation applies]. Through the words 'na' and 'vā', there is a 'viparivṛtti' (inversion/syntactical connection) of the sentence [meaning: it is not the case that having existed, it will cease to exist]. For that which, having existed before, 'na bhavati' (does not exist) in a later time, experiences the modification characterized as 'death.' But this (Self), due to existing even in the later time, does not die; therefore, it is 'Nitya' (Eternal). Meaning, it is incapable of destruction.

Here, regarding 'na bhūtvā' (having not been), the absence of a compound (samāsa) [between 'na' and 'bhūtvā'] is not a grammatical fault, just as in 'nānuyājeṣu' (not in the Anuyaja offerings). Because Lord Panini, in the section of 'Mahāvibhāṣā' (Great Option), has read the negative compound (Nañ-samāsa) as optional. However, what Katyayana has said—that 'the statement (of option) is purposeless because of the intention of the eternality of the compound, since it is established by nature'—that is 'anādeya' (unacceptable) because it contradicts the words of Lord Panini. As stated by Acharya Sabaraswami: 'Katyayana is indeed an incorrect speaker (Asadvadi).'

The division (of the verse) here is: 'Na jāyate mriyate vā' is the proposition (pratijñā). 'Kadācin nāyaṃ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ' is its substantiation (upapādana). 'Ajo nityaḥ' is its conclusion (upasaṃhāra).

Although by negating the first and last modifications, the intermediate modifications pervaded by them are also negated; still, to imply (upalakṣaṇa) other unmentioned modifications like motion etc., 'decay' and 'growth' are refuted by their own specific words. Regarding that, since the Self is Kutastha-Nitya (immutably eternal) and attributeless (nirguna), 'decay' (apakṣaya) is not possible either in essence or in quality—this is stated by 'Śāśvataḥ'. 'Śaśvat' means it exists always; it does not decay, does not decrease—this is the meaning.

If it does not decay, then does it grow? 'No'—He says with the word 'Purāṇaḥ'. Even 'purā' (in the past) it is 'nava' (new/fresh) and uniform; it does not experience any new state 'adhunā' (now). In the world, that which experiences a new state of 'accumulation' (upachaya/growth) is said to 'grow' (vardhate). But this (Self), due to being always of one form, neither decreases nor increases. This is the meaning.

'Existence' (asti) and 'Transformation' (vipariṇāma) are inherently negated separately as they are included within birth and destruction (or treated separately in other views). Since the Self is thus devoid of all modifications, 'Therefore'—even when the body is being killed, though connected to it, the Self is not killed nor can be killed by any means—this is the conclusion.

The possibility of killing etc. exists only when there is the state of birth etc.; that very state (birth) does not exist, He says with—'na jāyate' (is not born) etc. (By this) the absence of birth is described. 'Na vā kadācit mriyate'—by this, the negation of death is described.

'Ayam bhūtvā bhūyaḥ na bhavitā'—Here, the meaning is: (The Lord implies)—'For the sake of My sport (Lila), the manner/state in which this (soul) was manifested/conceived before in the creation, it will not come to be 'again' in that same manner (implying the uniqueness/eternality of the soul's divine purpose). Therefore, the purpose for which I produced it—it should do that very thing for 'My pleasure'; otherwise, there would be futility of birth (if it were just a cycle of births).'

Because the word 'bhūtvā' (having become/been) was used, a doubt regarding 'birth' might arise; for that purpose, He says—'Ajaḥ' (Unborn)—meaning 'it is not born,' because it is a part (ansha) of Me.

That this (Self) is indeed of this nature (permanent), He says with—'Nityaḥ' (Eternal). Furthermore, 'Śāśvataḥ' (Constant)—remaining in Me alone, it is continuously of 'one single nature/feeling.' Furthermore, 'Purāṇaḥ' (Ancient)—it is always thus, a 'servant-form' (dasa-rupa) for My service; though 'Purana' (ancient), it is indeed 'Nava' (new/fresh).

The purpose for which this was said is stated with—'na hanyate' etc. The Jiva situated in the 'hanyamāne śarīre' (body being killed)—when that body is killed, it 'na hanyate'—is not killed. This is the meaning. The meaning is: 'Hanyamāne'—meaning entered into a worldly body which is possessed of an end. By the word 'hanyamāne' (being killed/perishable), it is indicated that it (the body) was created for that very purpose (to perish). Therefore, by acting in accordance with the Lord's will (fighting), even the sin born of 'great delusion' (attachment) will not accrue—this is the purport.

"Na jāyate" means "is not born"; the meaning is that the modification of substance characterized by "birth" (jani) does not exist in the Self. Similarly, "na mriyate vā"—the word "vā" is in the sense of "and" (cha). By "and does not die," the final modification characterized by destruction is negated. The word "kadācit" (at any time) connects with all negations of modification—thus: "is never born, never dies." Since "ayam" (this) Self, "bhūtvā"—having experienced the act of coming into being—is not one that "bhūyaḥ" (again/later) becomes "abhavitā"—one that goes to non-existence; "tasmāt" (therefore) it does not die. For in the world, he who, having existed, ceases to exist, is said to "die." And by the words "vā" and "na", (it is implied that) this Self is not one that "abhūtvā" (having not existed) "bhavitā" (comes to be) "bhūyaḥ" (again), like the body; "tasmāt" (therefore) it is not born. For he who, having not existed, comes to be, is said to be "born." The Self is not so. Therefore, it is not born. Since it is so, therefore it is "ajaḥ" (unborn); and since it does not die, therefore it is "nityaḥ" (eternal).

Although by the negation of the first (birth) and last (death) modifications, all modifications are implicitly negated, still, the intermediate modifications should be negated by their own specific words so that the negation of all unmentioned modifications like youth etc. may be achieved—thus He says "śāśvata" etc. By "śāśvata," the modification characterized by "decay" (apakṣaya) is negated. He who exists "śaśvat" (always/continuously) is "śāśvata." It does not decay in its essential nature because it is partless (niravayava). Nor does it decay through the loss of qualities, because it is attributeless (nirguṇa).

The modification characterized by "growth" (vṛddhi), which is the opposite of decay, is also negated by "purāṇa". For he who increases by the addition of parts is said to "grow" and is called "abhinava" (new). But "ayam" (this) Self, being partless, is "nava" (new) even "purā" (in the past); hence it is "purāṇa"—meaning it does not grow.

Similarly, "na hanyate"—here, the root "hanti" should be seen in the sense of "transformation" (vipariṇāma) to avoid repetition (tautology). The meaning is: It does not undergo transformation. "Hanyamāne"—meaning even when the body is being transformed. In this mantra, the six "modifications of being" (bhāva-vikāras)—which are changes belonging to worldly objects—are negated in the Self. "The Self is devoid of all kinds of modifications"—this is the meaning of the sentence.

Since it is so, therefore (this verse) connects with the previous mantra "tau ubhau na vijānītaḥ" (those two do not know). Having proposed with the mantra "ya enam vetti hantāram..." that the Self becomes neither the agent nor the object of the act of killing, and having stated the reason of "immutability" (avikriyatva) with "na jāyate...", He now concludes the proposed subject (in the next verse).

He shows the "Kāṭaka-śrutis" (verses from Katha Upanishad) which serve as authority/proof for the stated meaning.

By "na jāyate" etc., the modifications of origination, existence, and destruction, as well as others, are negated in the Self.

"Aja" etc. constitutes the conclusion.

न not? जायते is born? म्रियते dies? वा or? कदाचित् at any time? न not? अयम् this (Self)? भूत्वा having been? भविता will be? वा or? न not? भूयः (any) more? अजः unborn? नित्यः eternal? शाश्वतः changeless? अयम् this? पुराणः ancient? न not? हन्यते is killed? हन्यमाने being killed? शरीरे in body.Commentary This Self (Atman) is destitute of the six types of transformation or BhavaVikaras such as birth? existence? growth? transformation? decline and death. As It is indivisible (Akhanda). It does not diminish in size. It neither grows nor does It decline. It is ever the same. Birth and death are for the physical body only. Birth and death cannot touch the immortal? allpervading Self.

Na kadacit, neverl; is ayam, this One; jayate, born i.e. the Self has no change in the form of being born to which matter is subject ; va, and ( va is used in the sense of and); na mriyate, It never dies. By this is denied the final change in the form of destruction. The word (na) kadacit), never, is connected with the denial of all kinds of changes thus never, is It born never does It die, and so on. Since ayam, this Self; bhutva, having come to exist, having experienced the process of origination; na, will not; bhuyah, again; abhavita, cease to be thereafter, therefore It does not die. For, in common parlance, that which ceases to exist after coming into being is said to die. From the use of the word va, nor, and na, it is understood that, unlike the body, this Self does not again come into existence after having been non-existent. Therefore It is not born. For, the words, 'It is born', are used with regard to something which comes into existence after having been non-existent. The Self is not like this. Therfore It is not born.
Since this is so, therefore It is ajah, birthless; and since It does not die, therefore It is nityah, eternal. Although all changes become negated by the denial of the first and the last kinds of changes, still changes occuring in the middle [For the six kinds of changes see note under verse 2.10.-Tr.] should be denied with their own respective terms by which they are implied. Therefore the text says sasvatah, undecaying,. so that all the changes, viz youth etc., which have not been mentioned may become negated. The change in the form of decay is denied by the word sasvata, that which lasts for ever. In Its own nature It does not decay because It is free from parts. And again, since it is without alities, there is no degeneration owing to the decay of any ality. Change in the form of growth, which is opposed to decay, is also denied by the word puranah, ancient. A thing that grows by the addition of some parts is said to increase and is also said to be new. But this Self was fresh even in the past due to Its partlessness. Thus It is puranah, i.e. It does not grow. So also, na hanyate, It is puranah, i.e. It does not grow. So also, na hanyate, It is not killed, It does not get transformed; even when sarire, the body; hanyamane, is killed, transformed. The verb 'to kill' has to be understood here in the sense of transformation, so that a tautology [This verse has already mentioned 'death' in the first line. If the verb han, to kill, is also taken in the sense of killing, then a tautology is unavoidable.-Tr.] may be avoided.
In this mantra the six kinds of transformations, the material changes seen in the world, are denied in the Self. The meaning of the sentence is that the Self is devoid of all kinds of changes. Since this is so, therefore 'both of them do not know' this is how the present mantra is connected to the earlier mantra.

As the self is eternal for the reasons mentioned (above), and hence free from modifications, it is said that all the attributes of the insentient (body) like birth, death etc., never touch the self. In this connection, as the statement, 'It is never born, It never dies' is in the present tense, it should be understood that the birth and death which are experienced by all in all bodies, do not touch the self. The statement 'Having come into being once, It never ceases to be' means that this self, having emerged at the beginning of a Kalpa (one aeon of manifestation) will not cease to be at the end of the Kalpa (i.e., will emerge again at the beginning of the next Kalpa unless It is liberated). This is the meaning - that birth at the beginning of a Kalpa in bodies such as those of Brahman and others, and death at the end of a Kalpa as stated in the scriptures, do not touch the self. Hence, the selves in all bodies, are unborn, and therefore eternal. It is abiding, not connected, like matter, with invisible modifications taking place. It is primeval; the meaning is that It existed from time immemorial; It is even new i.e., It is capable of being experienced always as fresh. Therefore, when the body is slain the self is not slain.