Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 23

व्याख्या --'नैनं छिन्दन्ति शास्त्राणि'-- इस शरीरीको शस्त्र नहीं काट सकते; क्योंकि ये प्राकृत शस्त्र वहाँतक पहुँच ही नहीं सकते।
जितने भी शस्त्र हैं, वे सभी पृथ्वी-तत्त्वसे उत्पन्न होते हैं। यह पृथ्वी-तत्त्व इस शरीरीमें किसी तरहका कोई विकार नहीं पैदा कर सकता। इतना ही नहीं, पृथ्वी-तत्त्व इस शरीरीतक पहुँच ही नहीं सकता, फिर विकृति करनेकी बात तो दूर ही रही!
'नैनं दहति पावकः'-- अग्नि इस शरीरीको जला नहीं सकती; क्योंकि अग्नि वहाँतक पहुँच ही नहीं सकती। जब वहाँतक पहुँच ही नहीं सकती, तब उसके द्वारा जलाना कैसे सम्भव हो सकता है? तात्पर्य है कि अग्नि-तत्त्व इस शरीरीमें कभी किसी तरहका विकार उत्पन्न कर ही नहीं सकता।
'न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापः'-- जल इसको गीला नहीं कर सकता; क्योंकि जल वहाँतक पहुँच ही नहीं सकता। तात्पर्य है कि जल-तत्त्व इस शरीरीमें किसी प्रकारका विकार पैदा नहीं कर सकता।
'न शोषयति मारुतः'-- वायु इसको सुखा नहीं सकती अर्थात वायुमें इस शरीरीको सुखानेकी सामर्थ्य नहीं है; क्योंकि वायु वहाँतक पहुँचती ही नहीं। तात्पर्य है कि वायु-तत्त्व इस शरीरीमें किसी तरहकी विकृति पैदा नहीं कर सकता।
पृथ्वी, जल, तेज, वायु और आकाश--ये पाँच महाभूत कहलाते हैं। भगवान्ने इनमेंसे चार ही महाभूतोंकी बात कही है कि ये पृथ्वी, जल, तेज और वायु इस शरीरीमें किसी तरहकी विकृति नहीं कर सकते; परन्तु पाँचवें महाभूत आकाशकी कोई चर्चा ही नहीं की है। इसका कारण यह है कि आकाशमें कोई भी क्रिया करनेकी शक्ति नहीं है। क्रिया (विकृति) करनेकी शक्ति तो इन चार महाभूतोंमें ही है। आकाश तो इन सबको अवकाशमात्र देता है।
पृथ्वी, जल, तेज और वायु--ये चारों तत्त्व आकाशसे ही उत्पन्न होते हैं, पर वे अपने कारणभूत आकाशमें भी किसी तरहका विकार पैदा नहीं कर सकते अर्थात् पृथ्वी आकाशका छेदन नहीं कर सकती, जल गीला नहीं कर सकता, अग्नि जला नहीं सकती और वायु सुखा नहीं सकती। जब ये चारों तत्त्व अपने कारणभूत आकाशको, आकाशके कारणभूत महत्तत्त्वको और महत्तत्त्वके कारणभूत प्रकृतिको भी कोई क्षति नहीं पहुँचा सकते, तब प्रकृतिसे सर्वथा अतीत शरीरीतक ये पहुँच ही कैसे सकते हैं? इन गुणयुक्त पदार्थोंकी उस निर्गुण-तत्त्वमें पहुँच ही कैसे हो सकती है? नहीं हो सकती (गीता 13। 31)।
शरीरी नित्य-तत्त्व है। पृथ्वी आदि चारों तत्त्वोंको इसीसे सत्ता-स्फूर्ति मिलती है। अतः जिससे इन तत्त्वोंको सत्ता-स्फूर्ति मिलती है, उसको ये कैसे विकृत कर सकते है यह शरीरी सर्वव्यापक है और पृथ्वी आदि चारों तत्त्व व्याप्य हैं अर्थात् शरीरीके अन्तर्गत हैं। अतः व्याप्य वस्तु व्यापकको कैसे नुकसान पहुँचा सकती है उसको नुकसान पहुँचाना सम्भव ही नहीं है।
यहाँ युद्धका प्रसङ्ग है। 'ये सब सम्बन्धी मर जायँगे'--इस बातको लेकर अर्जुन शोक कर रहे हैं। अतः भगवान् कहते हैं कि ये कैसे मर जायँगे? क्योंकि वहाँतक अस्त्र-शस्त्रोंकी क्रिया पहुँचती ही नहीं अर्थात् शस्त्रके द्वारा शरीर कट जानेपर भी शरीरी नहीं कटता, अग्न्यस्त्रके द्वारा शरीर जल जानेपर शरीरी नहीं जलता,
वरुणास्त्रके द्वारा शरीर गल जानेपर भी शरीरी नहीं गलता और वायव्यास्त्रके द्वारा शरीर सूख जानेपर भी शरीरी नहीं सूखता। तात्पर्य है कि अस्त्र-शस्त्रोंके द्वारा शरीर मर जानेपर भी शरीरी नहीं मरता, प्रत्युत ज्यों-का-त्यों निर्विकार रहता है। अतः इसको लेकर शोक करना तेरी बिलकुल ही बेसमझी है।

आत्मा सदा निर्विकार किस कारणसे है सो कहते हैं इस उपर्युक्त आत्माको शस्त्र नहीं काटते अभिप्राय यह कि अवयवरहित होनेके कारण तलवार आदि शस्त्र इसके अङ्गोंके टुकड़े नहीं कर सकते। वैसे ही अग्नि इसको जला नहीं सकता अर्थात् अग्नि भी इसको भस्मीभूत नहीं कर सकता। जल इसको भिगो नहीं सकता क्योंकि सावयव वस्तुको ही भिगोकर उसके अङ्गोंको पृथक्पृथक् कर देनेमें जलकी सामर्थ्य है। निरवयव आत्मामें ऐसा होना सम्भव नहीं। उसी तरह वायु आर्द्र द्रव्यका गीलापन शोषण करके उसको नष्ट करता है अतः वह वायु भी इस स्वस्वरूप आत्माका शोषण नहीं कर सकता।

Raising the doubt that 'Since the Self partakes in changes caused by the four elements beginning with earth, its unchangeability is unproven,' [the Commentator] asks 'Kasmat' (From what cause/Why?).

Since the elements are incapable of making the Self an object [of their action], its unchangeability is logical, like that of Akasha (space/ether); thus He states [the verse] beginning with 'aha' (He says).

He states its (the Self's) unchangeability again by another method through the verse beginning with 'nainam'.

'Nor do [waters] moisten [It]'—meaning they do not cause It to have disintegrated parts. The reason is Its part-lessness (being without parts).

Even if something is indestructible by itself and generally by common causes, destruction might happen by some special cause, like the cutting of a saw etc.; therefore, He negates special causes with 'nainam' (this... not) etc. 'From the negation in the present tense, it might be possible in the future?'—to this He says 'acchedyaḥ' (uncuttable). By the designation in the present tense, He indicates that the 'unfitness' (to be cut) is established due to non-observation in the present. Whence is this unfitness? Due to having the same form as the Lord, who is characterized by attributes like eternal, all-pervading, etc. By 'shashvata' (everlasting), mere uniformity is stated. By the word 'sthanu' (fixed/pillar), He wards off even incidental change (change caused by external factors). 'Nityatva' (eternality) is an adjective to 'all-pervasiveness'; otherwise there would be repetition. Even in the statement of oneness (similarity), there is no repetition in the identity with the Lord, due to the inclusion of unstated attributes. And the properties of the Bimba (Original) are indeed appropriate in the Pratibimba (reflection), when there is no contradiction. And that state (of being a reflection) is established by Shrutis and Smritis like 'He became the corresponding form for every form' (Brihadaranyaka 2.5.19, Katha 5.2.10) and 'And only a reflection' (Brahma Sutra 2.3.50). Nor is there contradiction with being a 'part' (amsha); because that very thing (reflection) is the part. And 'being a part' is not merely uniformity. The proof is the statement of both kinds. Nor is the reflection-hood of the part to be hypothesized; because manifold forms of the part are seen in Gadhi etc., which is not seen elsewhere. Even being 'sthanu' (fixed), statements like 'It saw' etc. are not contradictory for the Lord, due to (the existence of) both kinds of statements and His inconceivable power. And it is not 'one by Maya'; because of the statement of the non-contradiction of contradictory attributes merely by Lordship in texts like 'In You, the Lord, Brahman, it is not contradicted,' 'Not due to being a Yogi, but due to being the Lord,' 'And this is not strange in You, the cause of effects,' etc., and due to the supreme purport. Liberation is indeed the great human goal. Even there, liberation alone is the purpose. From Shrutis and Smritis like: 'The wise rejoiced in the ends, they did not rejoice in the middle. They called the attainment of the end happiness; the interval between these two is misery' (Shanti Parva 174.34); 'The world won by merit perishes' (Chandogya 8.1.6). And that (Liberation) is attained only by the grace of Vishnu. 'Without worshipping Vasudeva, who could attain liberation?'; 'But when He, the Infinite Lord (the Primal One), is pleased, what is unobtainable?' (Bhagavatam 3.6.25); 'By His grace one attains supreme perfection; there is no doubt'; 'Those to whom that very Infinite Lord shows mercy, if they have taken refuge at His feet with their whole soul without deceit—they indeed know and cross over the Divine Maya; for them there is no thought of "I and mine" in this (body) which is food for dogs and jackals' (Bhagavatam 2.7.42); 'When He is pleased, what is unobtainable here? Enough with Dharma, Artha, and Kama; they are paltry'; 'Without Whom in this existence, O Lord, living beings, struck by the three miseries, do not find peace in the self'; 'For without Your grace, whose liberation would happen here? Knowing Him thus...' (Nrisimha Purva Tapaniya Upanishad 1.6); and so on. And that (grace) happens only from the knowledge of supremacy, because it is well-known in the world.

What is the nature of this embodied soul? Regarding this, He says 'nainam' (This... not). Weapons do not cut This—meaning they do not split It in two—because It is not gross (solid).

Then, anticipating the doubt—'Will It then become the locus of qualities produced by heat (paka-ja), like an earthly atom [which changes color when baked but isn't destroyed]?'—He says 'nainam dahati pavakah' (Fire does not burn This); because It is not atomic. And waters do not moisten This, because It is touchless (intangible); for indeed, only a substance possessing touch can be moistened by water, not one without touch.

The wind does not dry It, because It is without oleation (moisture/oiliness). By this, one should understand the inclusion of attributes famous in the Sruti texts such as 'neither long, nor gross, nor atomic' and 'soundless, touchless, formless, unchangeable, as well as tasteless, eternal, and scentless'.

Weapons, fire, water, and wind are unable to effect cutting, burning, moistening, and drying against the Self.

Because the Self is all-pervading; due to its nature of pervading all elements (tattvas), it is subtler than all elements; therefore, it is incapable of being pervaded by them, whereas cutting, burning, moistening, and drying are actions that must be performed on objects that can be pervaded [by the agent].

Therefore, the Self is eternal, firm (sthanu), immovable (achala), and this [Self] is ancient (sanatana)—meaning of stable nature, unshakable, and primeval.

Demonstrating the absence of the means of killing implied by the earlier question 'How does he kill?', He clarifies the imperishability of the Self with the verse 'nainam' (This... not).

Waters do not moisten This—meaning, they do not loosen It by making It soft.

He resolves the potential fault of repetition regarding the previously stated ideas by distinguishing the purpose as being for 'firmness' and 'easy comprehension,' and introduces the two verses beginning with 'nainam' using 'punarapi' (furthermore).

In the one and a half verses beginning with 'nainam', the 'incapacity of the instruments' and the 'unsuitability of the object' are mentioned separately for the sake of clarity; although, being mutually correlative, elsewhere one is included in the other, thus they were not separately cited in the Bhashya explanation.

In words like 'acchedyah' (uncuttable) [in the next verse], the suffix implies 'capability/worthiness' (arha). Therefore, showing that even in statements like 'they do not cut it' (nainam chhindanti), it is the capability of the weapons, etc., that is being negated, he says 'na shaknuvanti' (they are not able).

He explains the word 'sarvagata' (all-pervading) as a restatement of the previously mentioned reason—'sarvagatatvat atmanah' (due to the Self being all-pervading). (Objection): How can the atomic (anu) Self be all-pervading? Anticipating this, he says 'sarvatattva...' (all elements...).

Here, the omnipresence (vibhutva) of the Jiva, which contradicts many scriptures, is not what is being expressed by the word 'sarvagata'; rather, it is the 'specific capability of entering into' (anupravesha) [matter]—this is the intent of [Ramanuja] using the word 'svabhava' (nature).

He elaborates on the mode of reasoning for 'pervasiveness' mentioned earlier with 'sarvebhyah' (than all...). 'Therefore the Self is eternal'—meaning, being incapable of being cut, etc., due to its subtlety, the Self is devoid of destruction.

'Sthira' etc. The two words 'sthanu' (firm) and 'achala' (immovable) are an elaboration of its eternal nature; the purport is either its unfitness for destruction and not being an object for a destroyer, or its freedom from natural or conditional distinct transformations.

'Puratana' (Ancient): Since 'endlessness' has been expressed by the word 'nitya' (eternal), the sentiment is that the word 'sanatana' should be restricted to the sense of 'beginninglessness' (anaditva).

अदृष्ट वस्तु को सदैव दृष्ट वस्तुओं के द्वारा ही समझाया जा सकता है। परिभाषा मात्र से वह वस्तु अज्ञात ही रहेगी। यहाँ भी भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण अविकारी नित्य आत्मतत्त्व का वर्णन अर्जुन को और हमको परिचित विकारी नित्य परिवर्तनशील जगत् के द्वारा करते हैं। यह तो सर्वविदित है कि वस्तुओं का नाश शस्त्र आदि अथवा प्रकृति के नाश के साधनों अग्नि जल और वायु के द्वारा संभव है। इनमें से किसी भी साधन से आत्मा का नाश नहीं किया जा सकता।शस्त्र इसे काट नहीं सकते यह सर्वविदित है कि एक कुल्हाड़ी से वृक्ष आदि को काटा जा सकता है परन्तु उसके द्वारा जलअग्नि वायु या आकाश को किसी प्रकार की चोट नहीं पहुँचायी जा सकती। सिद्धांत यह है कि स्थूल साधन अपने से सूक्ष्म वस्तु का नाश नहीं कर सकता । इसलिये स्वाभाविक ही है कि आत्मा जो कि सूक्ष्मतम तत्त्व आकाश से भी सूक्ष्म है का नाश शस्त्रों से नहीं हो सकता।अग्नि जला नहीं सकती अग्नि अपने से भिन्न वस्तुओं को जला सकती है परन्तु वह स्वयं को ही कभी नहीं जला सकती। ज्वलन अग्नि का धर्म है और अपने धर्म का अपने सत्य स्वरूप का वह नाश नहीं कर सकती। विचारणीय बात यह है कि आकाश में रहती हुई अग्नि आकाश में स्थित वस्तुओं को तो जला पाती है परन्तु आकाश को कभी नहीं। फिर आकाश से सूक्ष्मतर आत्मा को जलाने में वह अपने आप को कितना निस्तेज पायेगी जल गीला नहीं कर सकता पूर्व वर्णित सिद्धांत के अनुसार ही हम यह भी समझ सकते हैं कि जल आत्मा को आर्द्र या गीला नहीं कर सकता और न उसे डुबो सकता है। ये दोनों ही किसी द्रव्य युक्त साकार वस्तु के लिये संभव हैं और न कि सर्वव्यापी निराकार आत्मतत्व के लिये।वायु सुखा नहीं सकती जो वस्तु गीली होती है उसी का शोषण करके उसे शुष्क बनाया जा सकता है। आजकल सब्जियाँ और खाद्य पदार्थों के जल सुखाकर सुरक्षित रखने के अनेक साधन उपलब्ध हैं। परन्तु आत्मतत्त्व में जल का कोई अंश ही नहीं है क्योंकि वह अद्वैत स्वरूप है तब वायु के द्वारा शोषित होकर उसके नाश की कोई संभावना नहीं रह जाती।इन शब्दों के सरल अर्थ के अलावा इस श्लोक का गम्भीर अर्थ भी है जिसे भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण अगले श्लोक में और अधिक स्पष्ट करते हैं कि आत्मतत्त्व क्यों और कैसे शाश्वत है।यह आत्मा सनातन किस प्रकार है इसे सनातन स्वरूप से क्यों और कैसे पहचाना जा सकता है।

'Vasamsi' (Clothes), etc.

Just as one covered by clothes does not perish upon the destruction of those clothes, but becomes covered by other appropriate clothes, in the same way, the Self becomes covered by another body.

'Since destruction due to a cause (naimittika nasha) has been refuted previously, what is the use of the verse 'nainam' (This... not)?'—Responding to this, he states the purport after displaying the doubt that is to be removed, beginning with 'svatah' (by itself).

'Svatah' means by Time (kala). This indeclinable (avyaya) is used to exclude the cause that is suspected 'prayah' (frequently/mostly). The sentence should be completed as: '[The doubt is that] destruction might occur by some weapon, etc.'

Since there is no end to improbable doubts, he gives an example—'like the cutting of Kaka (Daksha), etc.' Just as the cutting of Daksha Prajapati's head did not happen by itself, nor merely by the instrument of Virabhadra's weapon, but rather due to a specific cause named the 'concept of the sacrificial animal' (yajna-pashu-bhavana), so it is here—this is the meaning.

'Ityatah'—because it was suspected in this way. 'Vishishyante' (are distinguished)—these are 'visheshah' (specifics); meaning specific causes of destruction.

Objection: 'Upon the destruction of the body, why is the Self residing within it not destroyed, just like a man residing inside a house [is destroyed] when the house burns?' To this, He says: 'Shastrani' (Weapons) like swords, etc., even if extremely sharp, do not cut 'enam' (This)—the Self under discussion; meaning, they are unable to split It into two by separating Its parts.

Similarly, 'pavaka' (fire), even if blazing fiercely, is unable to reduce It to ashes. Nor can 'apah' (waters), even if flowing with great speed, disintegrate Its parts by moistening. 'Maruta' (wind), even if extremely powerful, is unable to make It sapless (dry).

Although the intent is to negate all destroyers, since weapons, etc., are relevant in the present context of war, they are mentioned by way of 'avayutyanuvada' (singling out specific items from a group). Since Earth, Water, Fire, and Wind alone are well-known as destroyers, they alone are mentioned, and not Akasha (Space).

Therefore, even upon the removal of the body which is to be abandoned, since this (Self) possesses attributes like imperishability, weapons and the like do not cut it; thus He says 'nainam chhindanti'.

Weapons do not cut This due to the absence of solidity (grossness). Fire does not burn This due to the absence of the property of dryness (combustibility). Waters do not moisten This—meaning they do not loosen it by softening—due to the absence of hardness, etc. Wind does not dry This due to the absence of liquid (moisture); this is the meaning.

Therefore, even with the casting of weapons, etc., nothing will happen to It. This too is a form of 'My Sport' (Lila), therefore war, etc., should be performed for My satisfaction; this is the purport.

In the performance of such actions by all these (elements/weapons), My will alone is the cause; this is the purport. Because the Lord's will alone is the power within all to perform their respective duties (svadharma). Hence, it is stated in Srimad Bhagavatam (3.25.42): 'Out of fear of Me, this wind blows,' etc.

Weapons do not cut 'Enam'—this embodied Self under discussion; due to Its being partless, they do not effect a division of parts. Weapons means swords (asi), etc. Similarly, 'Pavaka'—meaning fire—does not burn This, meaning it does not reduce It to ashes.

Similarly, 'Apah' (waters) do not moisten This. For indeed, water has the capacity to cause the disintegration of parts of an object possessing parts (savayava) by making it wet. That [capacity] is not possible in the partless Self.

Similarly, wind destroys a substance possessing moisture (sneha) by drying up that moisture. But 'Maruta' (wind) does not dry This Self. Since it is so, therefore...

Again, in order to make the very imperishability of this Self easily comprehensible, He declares it through the one and a half verses beginning with 'nainam'.

By this, Its imperishability against earth, water, fire (tejas), and wind has been ascertained.

न not? एनम् this (Self)? छिन्दन्ति cut? शस्त्राणि weapons? न not? एनम् this? दहति burns? पावकः fire? न not?,च and? एनम् this? क्लेदयन्ति wet? आपः waters? न not? शोषयति dries? मारुतः wind.Commentary The Self is indivisible. It has no parts. It is extremely subtle. It is infinite. Therefore? sword cannot cut It fire cannot burn It water cannot wet It wind cannot dry It.

Why does It verily remain unchanged? This is being answered in, 'Weapons do not cut It,' etc. Sastrani, weapons; na, do not; chindanti, cut; enam, It, the embodied one under discussion. It being partless, weapons like sword etc. do not cut off Its limbs. So also, even pavakah, fire; na dahati enam, does not burn, does not reduce It to ashes. Ca, and similarly; apah, water; na enam kledayanti, does not moisten It. For water has the power of disintegrating a substance that has parts, by the process of moistening it. That is not possible in the case of the partless Self. Similarly, air destroys an oil substance by drying up the oil. Even marutah, air; na sosayati, does not dry; (enam, It,) one's own Self. [Ast. reads 'enam tu atmanam, but this Self', in place of enam svatmanam.-Tr.]

Weapons, fire, water and air are incapable of cleaving, burning, wetting and drying the self; for, the nature of the self is to pervade all elements; It is present everywhere; for, It is subtler than all the elements; It is not capable of being pervaded by them; and cleaving, burning, wetting and drying are actions which can take place only by pervading a substance. Therefore the self is eternal. It is stable, immovable and primeval. The meaning is that It is unchanging, unshakable and ancient.