Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 24

व्याख्या-- [शस्त्र आदि इस शरीरीमें विकार क्यों नहीं करते यह बात इस श्लोकमें कहते हैं।]
'अच्छेद्योऽयम्'-- शस्त्र इस शरीरीका छेदन नहीं कर सकते। इसका मतलब यह नहीं है कि शस्त्रोंका अभाव है या शस्त्र चलानेवाला अयोग्य है प्रत्युत छेदनरूपी क्रिया शरीरीमें प्रविष्ट ही नहीं हो सकती यह छेदन होनेके योग्य ही नहीं है।
शस्त्रके सिवाय मन्त्र शाप आदिसे भी इस शरीरीका छेदन नहीं हो सकता। जैसे याज्ञवल्क्यके प्रश्नका उत्तर न दे सकनेके कारण उनके शापसे शाकल्यका मस्तक कटकर गिर गया (बृहदारण्यक0)। इस प्रकार देह तो मन्त्रोंसे वाणीसे कट सकता है पर देही सर्वथा अछेद्य है।
'अदाह्योऽयम्'-- यह शरीरी अदाह्य है क्योंकि इसमें जलनेकी योग्यता ही नहीं है। अग्निके सिवाय मन्त्र शाप आदिसे भी यह देही जल नहीं सकता। जैसे दमयन्तीके शाप देनेसे व्याध बिना अग्निके जलकर भस्म हो गया। इस प्रकार अग्नि शाप आदिसे वही जल सकता है जो जलनेयोग्य होता है। इस देहीमें तो दहनक्रियाका प्रवेश ही नहीं हो सकता।
'अक्लेद्यः'-- यह देही गीला होनेयोग्य नहीं है अर्थात् इसमें गीला होनेकी योग्यता ही नहीं है। जलसे एवं मन्त्र शाप ओषधि आदिसे यह गीला नहीं हो सकता। जैसे सुननेमें आता है कि मालकोश रागके गाये जानेसे पत्थर भी गीला हो जाता है चन्द्रमाको देखनेसे चन्द्रकान्तमणि गीली हो जाती है। परन्तु यह देही रागरागिनी आदिसे गीली होनेवाली वस्तु नहीं है।
'अशोष्यः'-- यह देही अशोष्य है। वायुसे इसका शोषण हो जाय यह ऐसी वस्तु नहीं है क्योंकि इसमें शोषणक्रियाका प्रवेश ही नहीं होता। वायुसे तथा मन्त्र शाप ओषधि आदिसे यह देही सूख नहीं सकता। जैसे अगस्त्य ऋषि समुद्रका शोषण कर गये ऐसे इस देहीका कोई अपनी शक्तिसे शोषण नहीं कर सकता।
'एव च'-- अर्जुन नाशकी सम्भावनाको लेकर शोक कर रहे थे। इसलिये शरीरीको अच्छेद्य अदाह्य अक्लेद्य और अशोष्य कहकर भगवान् 'एव च' पदोंसे विशेष जोर देकर कहते हैं कि यह शरीरी तो ऐसा ही है। इसमें किसी भी क्रियाका प्रवेश नहीं होता। अतः यह शरीरी शोक करनेयोग्य है ही नहीं।
'नित्यः'-- यह देही नित्यनिरन्तर रहनेवाला है। यह किसी कालमें नहीं था और किसी कालमें नहीं रहेगा ऐसी बात नहीं है किन्तु यह सब कालमें नित्यनिरन्तर ज्योंकात्यों रहनेवाला है।
'सर्वगतः'-- यह देही सब कालमें ज्योंकात्यों ही रहता है तो यह किसी देशमें रहता होगा इसके उत्तरमें कहते हैं कि यह देही सम्पूर्ण व्यक्ति वस्तु शरीर आदिमें एकरूपसे विराजमान है।
'अचलः'-- यह सर्वगत है तो यह कहीं आताजाता भी होगा इसपर कहते हैं कि यह देही स्थिर स्वभाववाला है अर्थात् इसमें कभी यहाँ और कभी वहाँ इस प्रकार आनेजानेकी क्रिया नहीं है।
'स्थाणुः'-- यह स्थिर स्वभाववाला है कहीं आताजाता नहीं यह बात ठीक है पर इसमें कम्पन तो होता होगा
जैसे वृक्ष एक जगह ही रहता है कहीं भी आताजाता नहीं पर वह एक जगह रहता हुआ ही हिलता है ऐसे ही इस देहीमें भी हिलनेकी क्रिया होती होगी इसके उत्तरमें कहते हैं कि यह देही स्थाणु है अर्थात् इसमें हिलनेकी क्रिया नहीं है।
'सनातनः'-- यह देही अचल है स्थाणु है यह बात तो ठीक है पर यह कभी पैदा भी होता होगा इसपर कहते हैं कि यह सनातन है अनादि है सदासे है। यह किसी समय नहीं था ऐसा सम्भव ही नहीं है।
'विशेष बात'
यह संसार अनित्य है एक क्षण भी स्थिर रहनेवाला नहीं है। परन्तु जो सदा रहनेवाला है जिसमें कभी किञ्चिन्मात्र भी परिवर्तन नहीं होता उस देहीकी तरफ लक्ष्य करानेमें 'नित्यः'पदका तात्पर्य है।
देखने सुनने पढ़ने समझनेमें जो कुछ प्राकृत संसार आता है उसमें जो सब जगह परिपूर्ण तत्त्व है उसकी तरफ लक्ष्य करानेमें 'सर्वगतः' पदका तात्पर्य है।
संसारमात्रमें जो कुछ वस्तु व्यक्ति पदार्थ आदि हैं वे सबकेसब चलायमान हैं। उन चलायमान वस्तु व्यक्ति पदार्थ आदिमें जो अपने स्वरूपसे कभी चलायमान (विचलित) नहीं होता उस तत्त्वकी तरफ लक्ष्य करानेमें 'अचलः' पदका तात्पर्य है।
प्रकृति और प्रकृतिके कार्य संसारमें प्रतिक्षण क्रिया होती रहती है परिवर्तन होता रहता है। ऐसे परिवर्तनशील संसारमें जो क्रियारहित परिवर्तनरहित स्थायी स्वभाववाला तत्त्व है उसकी तरफ लक्ष्य करानेमें 'स्थाणुः' पदका तात्पर्य है।
मात्र प्राकृत पदार्थ उत्पन्न और नष्ट होनेवाले हैं तथा ये पहले भी नहीं थे और पीछे भी नहीं रहेंगे। परन्तु जो न उत्पन्न होता है और न नष्ट ही होता है तथा जो पहले भी था और पीछे भी हरदम रहेगा उस तत्त्व(देही)की तरफ लक्ष्य करानेमें 'सनातनः' पदका तात्पर्य है।
उपर्युक्त पाँचों विशेषणोंका तात्पर्य है कि शरीरसंसारके साथ तादात्म्य होनेपर भी और शरीरशरीरीभावका अलगअलग अनुभव न होनेपर भी शरीरी नित्यनिरन्तर एकरस एकरूप रहता है।

ऐसा होनेके कारण ( यह आत्मा न कटनेवाला न जलनेवाला न गलनेवाला और न सूखनेवाला है )। आपसमें एक दूसरेका नाश कर देनेवाले पञ्चभूत इस आत्माका नाश करनेके लिये समर्थ नहीं है। इसलिये यह नित्य है। नित्य होनेसे सर्वगत है। सर्वव्यापी होनेसे स्थाणु है अर्थात् स्थाणु ( ठूँठ ) की भाँति स्थिर है। स्थिर होनेसे यह आत्मा अचल है और इसीलिये सनातन है अर्थात् किसी कारणसे नया उत्पन्न नहीं हुआ है। पुराना है। इन श्लोकोंमें पुनरुक्तिके दोषका आरोप नहीं करना चाहिये क्योकि न जायते म्रियते वा इस एक श्लोकके द्वारा ही आत्माकी नित्यता और निर्विकारता तो कही गयी फिर आत्माके विषयमें जो भी कुछ कहा जाय वह इस श्लोकके अर्थसे अतिरिक्त नहीं है। कोई शब्दसे पुनरुक्त है और कोई अर्थसे ( पुनरुक्त है )। परंतु आत्मतत्त्व बड़ा दुर्बोध है सहज ही समझमें आनेवाला नहीं है इसलिये बारंबार प्रसंग उपस्थित करके दूसरेदूसरे शब्दोंसे भगवान् वासुदेव उसी तत्त्वका निरूपण करते हैं यह सोचकर कि किसी भी तरह वह अव्यक्त तत्त्व इन संसारी पुरुषोंके बुद्धिगोचर होकर संसारकी निवृत्तिका कारण हो।

Regarding the absence of purposeful actions (artha-kriya) like cutting, etc., employed by elements like earth, He states the cause as the 'absence of suitability' (yogyata-bhava) using the word 'yatah' (since). He connects the first half [of the verse] as the cause for the second half using 'yasmat' (because/since).
By 'nityatvat' (due to being eternal), etc., He indicates the mutual cause-and-effect relationship between attributes like eternalness, etc.

It cannot be argued that 'eternalness does not prove all-pervasiveness (sarvagatatva) because of the deviation (vyabhichara) seen in atoms (which are considered eternal but atomic/not all-pervading)'; for, since those [atoms] themselves are unproven/lack authority, the [charge of] deviation does not arise. Nor is it correct to say that 'even if all-pervading, the Self possesses the power of mutation,' because such [mutation] is not perceived in Space (Akasha), which is accepted as all-pervading. Nor is it possible to hold that 'there can be stability even while possessing the power of mutation,' because instability is observed in such things like clay, etc.—with this intention, He says 'sthiratvat' (due to being stable).

Objection: 'Even if it is inherently eternal, since destruction is possible due to some cause, origin is also possible; so how is it ancient (chirantana)?' Anticipating this, He says 'na karanat' (not from any cause)—[implying it is sanatan/primeval].

Objection: 'Since the unchangeability of the Self has already been established by "na jayate mriyate va" (It is not born, nor does It die...), stating the very same thing again and again constitutes repetition (punarukti).' Anticipating this, He says 'naitesham' (not of these). [The Commentator] shows the context of an objection that should not have been raised, using 'yatah' (since). The distinction is that the doubt regarding repetition is usually raised regarding 'vedavinashinam' (he who knows this to be imperishable...). Regarding how the doubt of repetition arises there, He says 'tatra' (there). The verse 'vedavinashinam' is referred to by the locative case ('tatra'), and by the word 'shloka', the verse 'na jayate...' is meant. (Objector): 'In this verse (acchedyo'yam), the absence of birth and death is indicated, and in "veda...", the absence of decay, etc., is intended; so why is the objection of repetition, based on the lack of additional meaning, not raised there?' To this, He says 'kinchit' (something/somewhat). (Question): 'Then why do you think the objection of repetition should not be raised?' To this, He says 'durbodhatvat' (because it is difficult to understand). Describing the intention of the Lord, who describes the Reality through distinct methods of repeated instruction, He says 'katham nu' (how indeed/by any means).

He states the conclusion with 'acchedyah' (uncuttable), etc. The connection of the restrictive particle 'eva' (indeed/only) applies everywhere. Since the elements, which are causes of mutual destruction, are unable to destroy the Self, therefore It is 'eternal' (nitya). Since there is a lack of proof regarding the eternalness of atoms, the fault of over-extension (atiprasanga) does not apply there. 'Therefore' It is all-pervading (sarvagata). 'For that very reason,' like the all-pervading Akasha (Space), It is stable like a 'sthanu' (pillar/stump); this is the meaning. 'For that very reason' It is immovable (achala). 'Therefore,' this Self is ancient (sanatana), not produced from any cause.
This Bhashya (commentary) implies (is an upalakshana for) the intended cause-and-effect relationship as well. Thus, the refutation of the 'fruits of action' (kriya-phala)—which are of the form of being producible (utpadya), attainable (apya), modifiable (vikarya), and purifiable (samskarya)—regarding the Self, is accomplished by the four adjectives beginning with 'eternal' (nitya) respectively. And the reverse order of the cause-and-effect relationship is established by the Bhashya statement 'not produced from any cause' and by its being an implication (upalakshana); thus there is no contradiction.

However, regarding what some [others] say: The Srutis say 'All-pervading like Akasha and eternal,' 'He stands alone in heaven, fixed like a tree,' 'Partless, actionless, peaceful,' etc. Also, Srutis like 'He who dwelling in the earth is within the earth,' 'He who dwelling in the waters is within the waters,' 'He who dwelling in the fire is within the fire,' 'He who dwelling in the wind is within the wind,' etc., show that the All-Pervading One, being the Inner Controller (Antaryami) of all, is not an object for them [weapons, etc.]. (They argue): 'Indeed, weapons cut that which does not reside within the weapon; but this (Self) is the impeller and Inner Controller of weapons, etc., by granting them existence and manifestation; therefore, how could weapons, etc., make Him the object of their operation?'—Some describe the purport in this way.

Regarding this, the following must be said: In this context of purifying the 'Thou' term (Tvam-pada/individual self), it is improper to cite Srutis propounding the 'Inner Controller' (Antaryami), which is the primary meaning of the 'That' term (Tat-pada). The realization that the 'Thou' term is being determined is evident from indicatory signs (tatparya-linga) such as: the introduction 'gatasun-agatasun' (those whose breath has gone and those whose hasn't); the middle references like 'dehino'smin' (of the embodied one...), 'antavanta ime deha' (these bodies are finite), 'vasamsi jirnani' (worn-out clothes); and the conclusion 'dehi nityam' (the embodied soul is eternal). Moreover, it has been established by everyone, and by [the opponents] themselves, that the first six chapters [of the Gita] are dedicated to the purification of the 'Thou' term.
Non-difference (Abheda) is real only between the Pure Consciousnesses (of Jiva and Ishvara) which are free from the relation of 'ruled and ruler'. The difference, however, is indeed conditional (aupadhika). Thus, the Bhashya states: 'This designation of difference between the Embodied Soul (Sharira) and the Inner Controller (Antaryami), caused by the limiting adjuncts (upadhi) of the body and senses presented by Nescience (Avidya), is not absolute/real.' Thus, since there is no 'rulership' in that Pure state where the non-difference of this pure [Jiva] is [realized], the citation of Antaryami Sruti is not useful in the present context.

Furthermore, the Sutras of Lord Badarayana (Vyasa) establishing the conditional nature of the difference are: 'Antaryamyadhidaivadishu taddharmavyapadeshat' (The Inner Ruler in the gods, etc., is the Supreme Self, because His attributes are designated). 'Na cha smartamataddharmabhilapat' (Nor is it the Pradhana of the Smriti [Sankhya], because attributes not belonging to it are mentioned). 'Sharirashchobhayepi hi bhedenainamadhiyate' (And the Embodied Soul is not the Inner Ruler, for both [Vedic branches] read it as distinct). (The Sruti says): 'He who controls this world, the other world, and all beings from within'—beginning thus, it is heard: 'He who dwelling in the earth is within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, who controls the earth from within,' etc. Here, in the context of deities, worlds, Vedas, sacrifices, beings, and the self, some 'internal controller' is heard of. Is he some deity-soul identifying with the deities? Or some Yogi who has attained powers like Anima? Or something else? The conclusion (Siddhanta) is: He who is heard as the Inner Ruler in the deities, etc., is the Supreme Self alone, not another. Why? 'Taddharmavyapadeshat'—because the attributes of that Supreme Self are designated in this text.

Nor can the 'Pradhana' of the Smriti be the meaning of the word Antaryami. From what cause? 'Ataddharmabhilapat'—because attributes like 'Seer-ship' (drashtritva), which do not belong to Pradhana, are mentioned.
Objection: 'Let it then be the Embodied Soul (Sharira)?' Hence he says 'Sharira' etc. The negative 'Na' continues from the previous sutra. The Embodied Soul also cannot be the Inner Ruler. 'Hi' (Because) both the Kanvas and the Madhyandinas read this Embodied Soul as distinct from the Inner Ruler—as the locus (like earth) and as the object of control. 'He who dwelling in the Vijnana (intellect/soul)...' read the Kanvas; 'He who dwelling in the Atman...' read the Madhyandinas. Therefore, it is established that the Inner Ruler is a Self distinct from the Embodied Soul.
And as to what was argued—'Indeed, weapons do not cut that which resides within the weapons'—that too is incorrect, because the cutting of iron, etc., is observed even though [the Antaryami/Self] resides within the iron, etc. Therefore, the reason of 'partlessness' (niravayavatva) stated by the omniscient Bhashyakara (Shankara) is alone correct—this is the direction.

Although stated by the verse 'na jayate', the 'Self-Knowledge'—which has a seen result (drishta-phala), like the repetition of threshing (avahanana) of paddy [has the seen result of husking]—is being described again by the Lord, the ocean of mercy, Sri Krishna, in other words by creating a context again and again, because it is difficult to understand (durbodha). The intention is: 'May this clear Reality, having somehow become an object of the intellect of seekers drowning in Samsara, lead to the cessation of Samsara.' Therefore, there is no [fault of] repetition.

Thus, there is the Sutra of Lord Vyasa: 'Avrittirasakrudupadeshat' (Repetition is required, because of repeated instruction). Its meaning: (Sruti says) 'The Self, my dear, should be seen, heard, reflected upon, and meditated upon'; 'Having known that alone, the wise one should practice wisdom'; 'He is to be sought, He is to be inquired into,' etc. Here a doubt arises: Should the cognition/mental modification be performed once, or with repetition? What is the prima facie view? It should be a single cognition, like the Prayaja offerings; for the scripture is fulfilled by that much. If repetition is performed which is not heard [in scripture], a non-scriptural meaning would be executed. (Opponent): 'But repeated instructions like "should be heard" are cited.' (Prima Facie): 'Even so, one should repeat only as many times as the words are used; nothing beyond a single hearing, etc.'—When this view is reached, we say: Repetition of the cognition must be performed. Why? 'Asakrudupadeshat'. For repeated instruction of the class 'should be heard, reflected, meditated' implies repetition of the cognition. Objection: 'It was said one should repeat only as many times as the words, not more?' (Reply): No. Because these culminate in 'Vision' (Darshana/Realization). Hearing and the rest, which culminate in Vision, become fruitful (have seen results) when repeated; just as threshing, etc., culminate in the production of rice grains, so it is here.

What is well-known in the world and not contradictory must be accepted here too. Regarding 'being the lover of Ahalya' etc., even though he (Indra) committed a fault, 'there was not much stain/sin for you'—this speaks of superiority alone. For that (fault) indeed has many hells as fruit (for others). And from another Shruti 'Of him (me there) not even a hair is injured' (Kaushitaki Up. 3.1). And from His statement 'He who, undeluded, knows Me thus as the Supreme Person' (Gita 15.19). 'Truth, Truth, again Truth, even by crores of oaths. Of a fraction of Vishnu's greatness divided into crores, and that again into infinity, and that again into infinity—Sri, Shesha, Brahma, and Shankara are not equal in greatness to even one part.' Thus in the Naradiya. The superiority of others and identity (with God) are contradictory to the Mahabharata, whose superiority is established by other texts like 'Just as... Mahabharata is best among all shastras. For who else other than Pundarikaksha (Vishnu) could be the creator of Mahabharata?' (Vishnu Purana 3.4.5). For there indeed, in passages like 'There is nothing equal to Narayana, nor was there, nor will there be. By this true statement I accomplish all goals,' 'From whose grace Brahma was born and Rudra from anger,' 'There is none equal to You'—even in the context of ordinary questions, it speaks of the great superiority of Vishnu. Elsewhere, even if something small (regarding others' superiority) is said, it is only on a specific/extraordinary occasion. For that exists even for Agni etc. in the Vedas etc. In 'You, O Agni, are Indra, the bull of the beings, you are Vishnu, the wide-striding, worthy of worship' (Rig Veda 2.1.3), 'Indra is superior to all' (Rig Veda 8.4.1.1), etc., and due to contradiction with those texts.

Anticipating the doubt—'From what cause do weapons, etc., not effect cutting, etc., upon This?'—He says 'because of Its unsuitability for cutting, etc.' through the verse 'acchedyo'yam' (This is uncuttable). Here, regarding uncuttability, etc., the previously mentioned attributes like 'non-grossness' (asthulatva), etc., should be understood as the causes.

Having thus described the 'negative' attributes (abhava-rupa) like grossness via terms like 'uncuttable,' He now states the 'positive' attributes (bhava-rupa)—'nitya' (eternal), etc. Although the object indicated by all adjectives is the one Reality (Vastu) which is Undivided and Homogeneous Essence (Akhanda-eka-rasa), still, through attributes like eternalness, qualities like 'producibility' (utpadyatva), etc., are refuted.

Since It is 'Eternal' (Nitya), therefore, like a pot, It is 'unproducible' (anutpadya). Since It is 'All-pervading' (Sarvagata), therefore, like a village [to be reached], It is 'unattainable' (aprapya - as it is already reached). Since It is 'Fixed/Firm' (Sthanu)—meaning of stable nature without abandoning its previous form—therefore, like milk [changing to curd], It is 'unmodifiable' (avikarya).

It is 'Immovable' (Achala). [Analogy]: Just as a mirror, though not deviating from its own clearness by itself, is made to deviate from clearness by a covering in the form of dirt; similarly, even one who is 'Sthanu' (fixed) might attain unsteadiness through contact with another [this is the doubt]. And that [mirror] requires 'purification' (samskara) characterized by the removal of the defect. But This [Self], being 'Achala' (immovable/unperturbed), is not like that. Thus, it is stated that the four types of 'fruits of action'—Production (Utpatti), Attainment (Apti), Modification (Vikriti), and Purification (Samskriti)—are not possible in the Self.

The reason for that is—'Sanatana' (Ancient/Primeval). 'Sana' is an indeclinable meaning 'continuity' (nairantarya). And that [continuity] is the absence of limitation (pariccheda) by space, time, and object. In other views [like Vaisheshika], although atoms lack limitation by time, they have limitation by space. Although Akasha (Space) lacks both those [limitations], it has limitation by object. That [limitation by object] is also of three kinds: internal difference (svagata), difference from the same species (sajatiya), and difference from distinct species (vijatiya). For example, a tree has 'internal' difference due to leaves, flowers, fruits, etc. It has 'sajatiya' difference from another tree. It has 'vijatiya' difference from a stone, etc. And since It exists 'Sana'—continuously, meaning devoid of the three types of limitations—therefore It is 'Sanatana', the Undivided Homogeneous Essence. Because of this, It is not the locus of production, etc.—this is the meaning.

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.

Regarding that, He states the reasons with the one and a half verses beginning with 'acchedyah' (uncuttable). Because It is partless, It is uncuttable and un-moistenable. Because It is formless (incorporeal), It is unburnable; and because It lacks fluidity, It is undryable—this is the purport.

Thus, It is not a fit object for cutting, etc.

Since It is eternal (imperishable), all-pervading, 'sthanu' (firm)—meaning of stable nature, devoid of changing into another form—'achala' (immovable)—meaning not abandoning Its previous form—and 'sanatana' (ancient/beginningless).

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).

यह तो स्पष्ट ही है कि जिस वस्तु का नाश प्रकृति की विनाशकारी शक्तियाँ अथवा मानव निर्मित साधनों एवं शस्त्रास्त्रों के द्वारा संभव नहीं है उसे नित्य होना चाहिये।इस श्लोक की दूसरी पंक्ति में आत्मा के अनेक विशेषण बताये गये हैं जो शीघ्रतावश चाहें जहां से उठाकर निष्प्रयोजन ही प्रयोग में नहीं लाये गये हैं। विचारों की एक शृंखला के रूप में प्रत्येक शब्द को चुनकर प्रयोग किया गया है। प्रथम पंक्ति में वर्णित जो अविनाशी तत्व हैं उसको नित्य होना चाहिये। जो नित्य वस्तु है वह निश्चित ही सर्वगत भी होगी।सर्वगत इस छोटे से शब्द का अर्थ व्यापक और तात्पर्य गम्भीर है। कोई भी वस्तु ऐसी शेष नहीं रह सकती जो सर्वगत तत्त्व के द्वारा व्याप्त न हो। नित्य आत्मा सर्वगत है तो उसका कोई आकार विशेष भी नहीं हो सकता क्योंकि आकार केवल परिच्छिन्न वस्तु का होता है जिसकी सीमा के बाहर उससे भिन्न अन्य कोई वस्तु रहती है। जैसे हाथ पैर इत्यादि अवयवों का आकार होता है क्योंकि इनके बाहर आसपास आकाश तत्त्व है। अत अपरिच्छिन्न सर्वगत आत्मा का कोई आकार नहीं है क्योंकि उसको परिच्छिन्न करने वाली कोई अन्य वस्तु है ही नहीं।इस प्रकार नित्य सर्वगत वस्तु का स्थिर और अचल होना स्वाभाविक है। उसमें चलनादि क्रिया संभव नहीं। गति केवल उस वस्तु के लिये है जो किसी काल और देश विशेष में रहती हो तब उसका स्थानान्तरण किया जा सकता है। आत्मा का किसी काल अथवा देश में अभाव नहीं है तो उसमें गति होने का प्रश्न ही नहीं उठता। मैं अपने स्वयं में ही घूम फिर नहीं सकता।यहाँ स्थिर और अचल दोनों शब्दों का एक साथ प्रयोग व्यर्थ प्रतीत हो रहा है क्योंकि वे कुछ समानार्थी हैं। परन्तु स्थिर शब्द से अभिप्राय नीचे मूल की स्थिरता से है जैसे पेड़ एक जगह स्थिर होते हैं परन्तु उनकी वृद्धि ऊपर की ओर होती है। यहाँ अचल रहकर ऊर्ध्व गति का भी निषेध किया गया है। अनन्तस्वरूप आत्मा स्थिर और अचल है अर्थात् उसमें किसी भी प्रकार की चलन क्रिया नहीं है।प्राचीन पुरातन वस्तु को सनातन कहते हैं। इस सनातन शब्द के दो अर्थ हैं एक वाच्यार्थ (शाब्दिक) और दूसरा है लक्ष्यार्थ। उसका सरल वाच्यार्थ यह है कि आत्मा कोई नई बनी वस्तु नहीं है वह प्राचीन है। लक्ष्यार्थ के अनुसार इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि आत्मा काल और देश से मर्यादित परिच्छिन्न नहीं है। किसी भी देश में किसी भी काल में कोई भी व्यक्ति आत्मसाक्षात्कार से पूर्णत्व प्राप्त करता है तो वह साक्षात्कार एक ही होगा भिन्नभिन्न नहीं।आगे भगवान कहते हैं

Regarding 'Nainam' (This... not), etc. For this [Self], the cause of destruction—weapons, etc.—does nothing (is ineffective). Because It is of the nature of pure Consciousness alone, supportless, partless, and independent; therefore, it is impossible to destroy It through the sequence of transformation into another nature, destruction of the substratum, separation of parts, or the emergence of an opposing force.

Nor is its migration to another body unprecedented (apurva). Even while connected to a body, it constantly goes to another body—meaning, it connects with that. This is because the body does not remain stable even for a single moment.

Having known this [Self] to be of such nature, you ought not to grieve.

'Then, this is uncuttable' etc. is repetition?

Given the incapacity of weapons, etc., to destroy It, He states the reason for Its unfitness for destruction generated by them. Since this is 'uncuttable,' therefore weapons do not cut It; since this is 'unburnable,' therefore fire does not burn It; since this is 'un-moistenable,' therefore waters do not moisten It; since this is 'undryable,' therefore wind does not dry It—it should be construed in this order. The particle 'eva' (indeed/only) is connected with each term to convey the certainty of being uncuttable, etc. 'Cha' (and) is used for conjunction or reason.

In the second half [of the verse], He states the reason for the unfitness for cutting, etc. This is 'Nitya' (eternal)—devoid of preceding and succeeding limits (beginning and end)—therefore, It is 'unproducible' (anutpadya). If It were not all-pervading, It would be non-eternal, based on the maxim 'as far as there is modification, there is division,' and because the atoms, etc., accepted by others are not accepted here. But This is all-pervading (sarvagata) and omnipresent (vibhu), therefore It is indeed eternal. By this, 'attainability' (prapyatva) is refuted.

And if This were mutable, It would not be all-pervading; but This is 'Sthanu' (pillar-like/fixed), meaning immutable; therefore, It is indeed all-pervading. By this, 'modifiability' (vikaryatva) is refuted.
Or, if It were 'chala' (moving/active), It would be mutable like a pot, etc.; but This is 'Achala' (immovable), therefore not mutable. By this, 'purifiability' (samskaryatva) is refuted. Transformation into another state by abandoning the previous state is 'vikriya' (modification). Mere movement while the state remains identical is 'kriya' (action)—this is the distinction.
Since it is so, therefore It is 'Sanatana' (ancient/primeval)—always of one form. The meaning is that It is not the object (karma) of any action.

'Object-ness' (karmatva) would arise only if there were a connection with the fruit of action, which is one of the following: production (utpatti), attainment (apti), modification (vikriti), or purification (samskriti). But This, being eternal, is not producible (only non-eternal things like pots are producible). Being all-pervading, It is not attainable (only limited things like pots are attainable). Being fixed (sthanu), It is unmodifiable (only mutable things like ghee are modifiable). Being immovable (achala), It is unpurifiable (only active things like mirrors are purifiable).

And so say the Srutis: 'All-pervading like space and eternal,' 'He stands alone in heaven, fixed like a tree,' 'Partless, actionless, peaceful,' etc.

Also, the Sruti 'He who dwelling in the earth is within the earth... who dwelling in the waters... who dwelling in the fire... who dwelling in the wind...' shows that the All-Pervading One, being the Inner Controller of all, is not an object for them. Indeed, weapons cut that which does not reside within the weapons; but This (Self) is the impeller and Inner Controller of weapons, etc., by granting them existence and manifestation. Therefore, how could weapons, etc., make Him the object of their operation? This is the intent. Here, Srutis like 'By whom the sun shines,' 'That too is inflamed by Tejas,' etc., should be considered. And the Holy Lord will reveal this in the Seventh Chapter—this is the direction.

Even though these [weapons, etc.] possess the properties of cutting and so on, they do not do that without My will; and only by My will do they act so upon bodies, etc., that are to be abandoned. 'Therefore, you too, having known these attributes of uncuttability, etc., in this [Self], become engaged [in action]'—having said this, He states the attributes of uncuttability, etc., with 'acchedyah' (uncuttable).

The meaning is that This possesses attributes like uncuttability.

He states the cause for possessing attributes like uncuttability: It is 'Nitya' (eternal), meaning imperishable; 'Sarvagata' (all-pervading), meaning pervasive; 'Sthanu' (firm), meaning of stable nature; 'Achala' (immovable), meaning always of one form; 'Sanatana' (ancient), meaning beginningless.

Since [weapons/elements] which are the causes of mutual destruction are unable to destroy This Self, therefore It is 'Eternal' (Nitya). Because It is eternal, It is 'All-pervading' (Sarvagata). Because It is all-pervading, It is 'Stable' like a pillar (Sthanu)—this is the meaning. Because It is stable, this Self is 'Immovable' (Achala). Therefore, It is 'Sanatana', meaning ancient/primeval; not 'new' (abhinava) produced from any cause—this is the meaning.

The objection of 'repetition' (punarukti) should not be raised regarding these verses. Because the eternal nature and unchangeability of the Self were indeed stated by a single verse beginning with 'It is not born, nor does It die...' (Gita 2.20). Whatever is stated there regarding the Self does not exceed the meaning of this verse; something is repeated by word, and something by meaning.

[However,] because the Reality of the Self is 'difficult to understand' (durbodha), Lord Vasudeva describes the very same Reality with different words by bringing up the context again and again, with the intention: 'How indeed, by some means, having become an object of the intellect of transmigrating beings (samsaris), might that unmanifest Reality lead to the cessation of Samsara?'

With the half-verse beginning with 'acchedya' (uncuttable), the conclusion is drawn. 'Nitya' (Eternal) is used to exclude the state of being an effect (karyatva). 'Sarvagata' means pervasiveness.

With the intention of its nature as Brahman, the Jiva (soul) is pervasive—not by its [atomic] form, but by its attribute of consciousness, due to being a characteristic (dharma) of the Lord; this will be stated later.

'Sthanu' means stability. 'Achala' means actionless-ness. Objection: 'If it is of such nature, then it is the well-known Akasha (Space)—is it that alone?' If this is argued, He says 'No' with the word 'Sanatana' (Ancient).

Because in the text 'From that, verily, from this Self, Akasha was born' (Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1), the origin of that [Akasha] is heard—this is the meaning.

अच्छेद्यः cannot be cut? अयम् this (Self)? अदाह्यः cannot be burnt? अयम् this? अक्लेद्यः cannot be wetted? अशोष्यः cannot be died? एव also? च and? नित्यः eternal? सर्वगतः allpervading? स्थाणुः stable? अचलः immovable? अयम् this? सनातनः ancient.Commentary The Self is very subtle. It is beyond the reach of speech and mind. It is very difficult to understand this subtle Self. So Lord Krishna explains the nature of the immortal Self in a variety of ways with various illustrations and examples? so that It can be grasped by the people.Sword cannot cut this Self. It is eternal. Because It is eternal? It is allpervading. Because It is allpervading? It is stable like a stature. Because It is stable? It is immovable. It is everlasting. Therefore? It is not produced out of any cause. It is not new. It is ancient.

Since this is so, therefore ayam, It; acchedyah, cannot be cut. Since the other elements which are the causes of destruction of one ano ther are not capable of destroying this Self, therefore It is nityah, eternal. Being eternal, It is sarva-gatah, omnipresent. Being omnipresent, It is sthanuh, stationary, i.e. fixed like a stump. Being fixed, ayam, this Self; is acalah, unmoving. Therefore It is sanatanah, changeless, i.e. It is not produced from any cause, as a new thing.

It is not to be argued that 'these verses are repetive since eternality and changelessness of the Self have been stated in a single verse itself, "Never is this One born, and never does It die," etc. (20). Whatever has been said there (in verse 19) about the Self does not go beyond the meaning of this verse. Something is repeated with those very words, and something ideologically.' Since the object, viz the Self, is inscrutable, therefore Lord Vasudeva raises the topic again and again, and explains that very object in other words so that, somehow, the unmanifest Self may come within the comprehension of the intellect of the transmigrating persons and bring about a cessation of their cycles of births and deaths.

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.