Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 25

व्याख्या-- 'अव्यक्तोऽयम्'-- जैसे शरीर-संसार स्थूल-रूपसे देखनेमें आता है, वैसे यह शरीरी स्थूलरूपसे देखनेमें आनेवाला नहीं है; क्योंकि यह स्थूल सृष्टिसे रहित है।
'अचिन्त्योऽयम्'-- मन, बुद्धि आदि देखनेमें तो नहीं आते पर चिन्तनमें आते, ही हैं अर्थात् ये सभी चिन्तनके विषय हैं। परन्तु यह देही चिन्तनका भी विषय नहीं है; क्योंकि यह सूक्ष्म सृष्टिसे रहित है।
'अविकार्योऽयमुच्यते'-- यह देही विकार-रहित कहा जाता है अर्थात् इसमें कभी किञ्चिन्मात्र भी परिवर्तन नहीं होता। सबका कारण प्रकृति है उस कारणभूत प्रकृतिमें भी विकृति होती है। परन्तु इस देहीमें किसी प्रकारकी विकृति नहीं होती; क्योंकि यह कारण सृष्टिसे रहित है।
यहाँ चौबीसवें-पचीसवें श्लोकोंमें अच्छेद्य, अदाह्य, अक्लेद्य, अशोष्य, अचल, अव्यक्त, अचिन्त्य और अविकार्य इन आठ विशेषणोंके द्वारा इस देहीका निषेधमुखसे और नित्य सर्वगत स्थाणु और सनातन--इन चार विशेषणोंकेद्वारा इस देहीका विधिमुखसे वर्णन किया गया है। परन्तु वास्तवमें इसका वर्णन हो नहीं सकता क्योंकि यह वाणीका विषय नहीं है। जिससे वाणी आदि प्रकाशित होते हैं उस देहीको वे सब प्रकाशित कैसे कर सकते हैं अतः इस देहीका ऐसा अनुभव करना ही इसका वर्णन करना है।
'तस्मादेवं विदित्वैनं नानुशोचितुमर्हसि'-- इसलिये इस देहीको अच्छेद्य, अशोष्य, नित्य, सनातन, अविकार्य आदि जान लें अर्थात् ऐसा अनुभव कर लें तो फिर शोक हो ही नहीं सकता।

तथा यह आत्मा बुद्धि आदि सब करणोंका विषय नहीं होनेके कारण व्यक्त नहीं होता ( जाना नहीं जा सकता ) इसलिये अव्यक्त है। इसीलिये यह अचिन्त्य है क्योंकि जो पदार्थ इन्द्रियगोचर होता है वही चिन्तनका विषय होता है। यह आत्मा इन्द्रियगोचर न होनेसे अचिन्त्य है। यह आत्मा अविकारी है अर्थात् जैसे दहीके जावन आदिसे दूध विकारी हो जाता है वैसे यह नहीं होता। तथा अवयवरहित ( निराकार ) होनेके कारण भी आत्मा अविक्रिय है क्योंकि कोई भी अवयवरहित ( निराकार ) पदार्थ विकारवान् नहीं देखा गया। अतः विकाररहित होनेके कारण यह आत्मा अविकारी कहा जाता है। सुतरां इस आत्माको उपर्युक्त प्रकारसे समझकर तुझे यह शोक नहीं करना चाहिये कि मैं इनका मारनेवाला हूँ मुझसे ये मारे जाते हैं इत्यादि।

Since the purification of the meaning of the word 'Tvam' (Thou) is the context, He states another reason regarding that very subject with 'kiñca' (moreover). Why is the fame (knowledge) of the Self, characterized by eternality etc., not established in that way? To that He says 'avyakta' (unmanifest). (Objection): Let it not be perceptible, but why should it not be inferable? Anticipating this, He says 'ataeva' (therefore indeed). He expands on that very point with 'yaddhi' (for what). (Objection): Even if beyond the senses, it could be an object of 'general observation' (samanyato-drishta inference)? Anticipating this, He says 'not so', because of the absence of a mark (linga) of invariable concomitance with the immutable Self—'avikāryaḥ' (unchangeable). He gives a negative example for unchangeability with 'yathā' (just as). Moreover, 'The Self does not change, because it is a partless substance, like a pot etc.'—He states this negative inference with 'niravayavatvācca' (and due to partlessness). (Objection): What is the harm in possessing change even if partless? Anticipating this, He says 'na hi' (not indeed). Because only that which has parts is seen to possess change; so if there is change, partlessness is inappropriate—this is the meaning. For that which has parts and activity, like milk etc., obtains modification as curd etc.; but there is no possessing of parts for the Self whose partlessness is established by Shruti; therefore, due to immutability, It is not fit to be modifiable—He states this result with 'avikriyatvāt' (due to unchangeability). Having started the instruction of the true nature of the Self with 'aśocyān...' (those not to be grieved), He concludes what has been explained with 'tasmāt' (therefore). Since the Self has been determined as having the nature of unmanifestness, unthinkability, unchangeability, eternality, all-pervasiveness, etc., therefore it is proper to know It exactly thus, because that knowledge is fruitful—this is the meaning. He enacts the very grief that is to be prohibited with 'hanta aham' (Alas, I am...).

Moreover, because It is not an object of any instrument (senses/karana), It is not manifested; hence It is 'Avyakta' (Unmanifest). This is beyond perception (pratyaksha-atita); being imperceptible to direct perception, It is 'Achintya' (Inconceivable)—meaning It is not graspable by inference; He states that It is not graspable even by inference based on effects (karya-lingaka-anumana).

'Avikarya' (Unchangeable)—meaning It does not undergo modification. By this, it should be understood that It is implicitly taught as being distinct from the three bodies (gross, subtle, and causal).

However, the view held by some that 'avikarya' means 'being beyond the reach of the organs of action' is questionable. Because that is already included by 'avyakta'. Otherwise, the quality of being beyond 'inference based on general observation' (samanyato-drishta anumana) would not be obtained [from the word Avyakta].

It is stated [in Scripture]: 'One who does not know the Vedas does not conceive the Great One,' 'From whom words return along with the mind, without attaining Him'—by such Srutis. Therefore, having known this Self in the manner described, you ought not to grieve thinking 'I am the killer, these are killed by me.'

Therefore, indeed, It is of the form of the unmanifest (Avyakta) and so on.

Thus, the 'knowable' Reality has been described. And He states that this (Reality) must be directly realized by negating the three bodies superimposed upon It, through the verse 'avyakto'yam' (This is unmanifest), etc.
'Vyakta' (Manifest) is the gross body, graspable by perception; this Inner Self is other than that.
Similarly, This is 'Achintya' (Inconceivable). 'Chintya' (Conceivable) is that which is fit for thought, inferable through the effects of illumination like form, etc., consisting of the aggregate of eyes, etc.—the 'Subtle Body' (Linga Sharira)—which is (itself) imperceptible. This (Self) is other than that too.
Similarly, This is 'Avikarya' (Unchangeable). 'Vikarya' (Changeable) is that which is capable of existing in the state of gross and subtle effects; it is the 'Causal Body' (Karana Sharira), consisting of the three Gunas, the Primordial Ignorance (Mula-ajnana). It is known only by the Witness (Sakshi-ekagamya)—as seen from the recollection of one risen from sleep, 'I knew nothing,' and the experience 'I do not know.' This (Self) is other than that too.

It is described through the method of negating the 'manifest,' etc., and not through the positive method of direct specification (sringagrahika—catching by the horns) saying 'This is of such nature.' Since It is described in this way, therefore, having known It, you ought not to grieve. Based on the Sruti 'The knower of the Self crosses over grief' (Chandogya Upanishad 7.1.3), become a knower of the Self and do not grieve over the sorrow born of separation from kinsmen—this is the meaning.

And it is stated (in Gaudapada Karika 1.13) that the Self transcends the three states: 'The first two (Vishva and Taijasa) are endowed with dream and sleep; Prajna is with sleep devoid of dream. In the Fourth (Turiya), the certain ones see neither sleep nor dream.'

Objects capable of being cut, etc., are manifested by whichever proofs (means of knowledge); by those, 'This' Self is not manifested; hence It is 'Avyakta' (Unmanifest). Therefore, It is of a different class than things that can be cut, etc.

And It is 'Achintya' (Inconceivable); being of a different class than all objects, It is not capable of even being thought of as possessing those respective natures.
And therefore, It is 'Avikarya' (Unchangeable)—unfit for modification.

Therefore, having known this Self possessing the described characteristics, you ought not to grieve 'for that' (the destruction of the body).

Moreover, It is 'Avyakta' (Unmanifest), meaning It is not an object of the eyes and other senses. It is 'Achintya' (Inconceivable), meaning It is not an object even of the mind. It is 'Avikarya' (Unchangeable), meaning It is beyond the reach of the organs of action as well; this is the meaning.

By the word 'uchyate' (it is said), He cites the statement of the learned (authorities) regarding eternalness, etc., as evidence.

He concludes with 'tasmad' (therefore).

He explains the verse 'avyaktah' (unmanifest)—which is intended to refute all objections by resolving the contradiction between the previously stated inferences and [direct] apprehension (upalambha) or logic (yukti), and to conclude the topic at hand—with 'chedana' (cutting), etc. By whichever proofs bodies, etc., are cognized as capable of being cut, by those [proofs] 'This' [Self] is not cognized in that way; for the apprehension of the Self occurs only in the form 'I know'. And Its being 'eternal' (shashvata) is based on its specific nature of eternalness, etc.; thus, there is no contradiction with the 'dharmi-grahaka' (the proof that establishes the subject itself) of the previously stated inferences—this is the purport.

The terms 'Vyakta' and 'Avyakta' are defined in the Mokshadharma (Mahabharata, Shanti Parva): 'Whatever is grasped by the senses, that is established as Vyakta (Manifest). That which is graspable [only] by signs (inference) and is beyond senses should be known as Avyakta.' (Objection): 'Regarding a seed placed in a granary (kusula), when establishing its "unsuitability for sprouting" [at that time], although there is no contradiction with the dharmi-grahaka regarding that specific individual [seed], still, since it is possessed of the "seed-species" (bijatva-jati) which is the subject of concomitance (anvaya) and divergence (vyatireka) [for sprouting], there is indeed a contradiction in a general sense. Similarly, here too, there would be a contradiction due to similarity with seen [bodies]?" Anticipating this, He says 'Therefore It is of a different class (vijatiya) than cuttable objects.' The purport is: There is an absence of proof for similarity (sajatya), and there is proof for dissimilarity (vaijatya).

He states the meaning of the word 'Achintya' (Inconceivable) along with its reason and mode, using 'sarva' (all objects...). By this, the 'looseness of the foundation' (baselessness) of the reasons for the non-eternalness of the Self—such as 'existence' (sattva)—favored by the Saugatas (Buddhists) and others, and of their supporting arguments, is asserted, due to their contradiction with [direct] apprehension and scripture (Agama). 'Atashcha' (And therefore)—means also because there are no defeaters (badhaka) for the previously stated proofs.

Or, another inference is being stated. Thus: 'The Self is unfit for modification (proposition), because it is devoid of any proof grasping modification (reason); like the nature of Ishvara (positive example); unlike a pot, etc. (negative example).' Or, a general invariable concomitance (vyapti): 'Whatever is devoid of the proof grasping a specific form, is not of that form; just as blue is not of the form of yellow.' If only 'avikarya' (unchanging) were specified, it might imply the fault of 'proving what is already proven' (siddha-sadhanata) due to a mere occasional absence of change. To avoid that, he expounds the meaning of the suffix [in the commentary] as 'vikara-anarha' (unfit/incapable of modification). The use of the suffix 'Ktva' [in viditva - having known] indicates that the 'knowing' precedes the 'negation' [of grief], not [that it precedes] the grief itself. By this, it is stated that Self-knowledge is the cause of the absence of grief. 'Arhasi' (You ought/are fit)—The purport is: For you, the knower of the Self, there would not even be the fitness (capability) for grief.

आत्मा के स्वरूप को भगवान् यहाँ और अधिक स्पष्ट करते हैं। यहाँ प्रयुक्त शब्दों के द्वारा सत्य का निर्देश युक्तिपूर्वक किया गया है।अव्यक्त पंचमहाभूतों में जो सबसे अधिक स्थूल है जैसे पृथ्वी उसका ज्ञान पांचों ज्ञानेन्द्रियों के द्वारा होता है। परन्तु जैसेजैसे सूक्ष्मतर तत्त्व तक हम पहुँचते हैं वैसे यह ज्ञात होता है कि उसका ज्ञान पांचों प्रकार से नहीं होता। जल में गंध नहीं है और अग्नि में रस नहीं है तो वायु में रूप भी नहीं है। इस प्रकार आकाश सूक्ष्मतम होने से दृष्टिगोचर नहीं होता। स्वभावत जो आकाश का भी कारण है उसका ज्ञान किसी भी इन्द्रिय के द्वारा नहीं हो सकता। अत हमें स्वीकार करना पड़ेगा कि वह अव्यक्त है।इन्द्रियगोचर वस्तु व्यक्त कही जाती है। अत जो इन्द्रियों से परे है वह अव्यक्त है। यद्यपि मैं किसी वृक्ष के बीज में वृक्ष को देखसुन नहीं सकता हूँ और न उसका स्वाद स्पर्श या गंध ज्ञात कर सकता हूँ तथापि मैं जानता हूँ कि यही बीज वृक्ष का कारण है। इस स्थिति में कहा जायेगा कि बीज में वृक्ष अव्यक्त अवस्था में है। इस प्रकार आत्मा को अव्यक्त कहने का तात्पर्य यह है कि वह इन्द्रियों के द्वारा जानने योग्य विषय नहीं है। उपनिषदों में विस्तारपूर्वक बताया गया है कि आत्मा सबकी द्रष्टा होने से दृश्य विषय नहीं बन सकती।अचिन्त्य आत्मा इन्द्रियों का विषय नहीं है उसी प्रकार यहाँ वह अचिन्त्य है कहकर यह दर्शाते हैं कि मन और बुद्धि के द्वारा हम आत्मा का मनन और चिन्तन नहीं कर सकते जैसे अन्य विषयों का विचार सम्भव है। इसका कारण यह है कि मन और बुद्धि दोनों स्वयं जड़ हैं। परन्तु इस चैतन्य आत्मा के प्रकाश से चेतन होकर वे अन्य विषयों को ग्रहण करते हैं। अब अपने ही मूलस्वरूप द्रष्टा को वे किस प्रकार विषय रूप में जान सकेंगे दूरदर्शीय यन्त्र से देखने वाला व्यक्ति स्वयं को नहीं देख सकता क्योंकि एक ही व्यक्ति स्वयं द्रष्टा और दृश्य दोनों नहीं हो सकता। यह अचिन्त्य शब्द का तात्पर्य है। अत अव्यक्त और अचिन्त्य शब्द से आत्मा को अभाव रूप नहीं समझ लेना चाहिए।अविकारी अवयवों से युक्त साकार पदार्थ परिच्छिन्न और विकारी होता है। निरवयव आत्मा में किसी प्रकार का विकार संभव नहीं है।इस प्रकार श्रीकृष्ण अर्जुन को उपदेश करते हैं कि आत्मा को उसके शुद्ध रूप से पहचान कर शोक करना त्याग देना चाहिए। ज्ञानी पुरुष अपने को न मारने वाला समझता है और न ही मरने वाला मानता है।भौतिकवादी विचारकों के मत को स्वीकार करके यह मान भी लें कि आत्मा नित्य नहीं है तब भी भगवान् 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.

Objection: 'The Lord is seen and meditated upon by the wise; so how is it said that "This is unmanifest, This is inconceivable"?'

To this, He says 'Atah eva' (Therefore indeed). Precisely because He possesses inconceivable power (He is both unmanifest yet seen by the wise).

As it is said: 'Therefore, in the Infinite, there is no such sign (linga)' (referencing Brahma Sutra logic).

Even due to the absence of a means of knowledge (pramana) grasping [attributes like] 'capability of being cut' (chedyatva), there is the absence of that [quality]—He states this with the half-verse beginning with 'avyakto'yam' (This is unmanifest). Indeed, that which is an object of the senses is called 'Vyakta' (Manifest) because of direct perception. But This [Self], being devoid of form, etc., is not so. Therefore, 'Perception' (Pratyaksha)—which could grasp qualities like cuttablility—does not apply to it; this is the meaning.

'Even in the absence of Perception, there could be Inference (Anumana)?'—To this, He says 'achintyo'yam' (This is inconceivable). 'Chintya' means inferable; This is distinct from that. For in some cases, fire, etc., becomes perceptible [later] or is inferred due to the sight of smoke, etc., for which invariable concomitance (vyapti) has been grasped. But in the case of the imperceptible [Self], since the grasping of invariable concomitance is impossible, 'inferability' is not possible; this is the purport.

'But it is seen that even imperceptible things like senses, etc., are subjects of "General Observation Inference" (Samanyato Drishta Anumana)?'—To this, He says 'avikaryo'yam' (This is unchangeable). The eye, etc., which possess modification, are hypothesized through the 'inexplicability of their effects otherwise' (anyatha-anupapatti); thus they become subjects of 'Presumption' (Arthapatti) and 'General Observation Inference'. But This [Self] is neither modifiable nor possessed of modification; therefore, It is not a subject of Presumption or General Observation Inference; this is the meaning.

Worldly testimony (Laukika Shabda) also depends on Perception, etc.; thus, by the negation of those, it is also negated. Objection: 'The quality of being cut, etc., might be grasped regarding It by the Veda itself?'—To this, He says 'uchyate' (It is said). By the Veda, along with its accessories, This [Self] is described—expounded with purport—indeed as uncuttable, unmanifest, etc. Therefore, the Veda, while being the expounder of That, is not the expounder of qualities like 'being cut'; this is the meaning.

Here [the distinction is]:
In 'nainam chhindanti' (2.23), the absence of capacity in weapons, etc., to destroy It was stated.
In 'acchedyo'yam' (2.24), the unfitness of That [Self] to be the object (karma) of cutting, etc., was stated.
In 'avyakto'yam' (2.25), the absence of any proof (mana) grasping its cutting, etc., is stated. Thus, 'non-repetition' (apaunaruktya) should be observed.

Regarding the repetition in meaning and word of verses like 'vedavinashinam' (2.21), the Commentator [Shankara] has already resolved it by stating: 'Because the Reality of the Self is difficult to understand, Lord Vasudeva describes the very same Reality with different words by bringing up the context again and again, saying: How indeed, by having become an object of the intellect of transmigrating beings, might that Truth lead to the cessation of Samsara?'

Thus, when the eternalness and immutability of the Self are established by the previously mentioned arguments, 'your grief is not reasonable'—He concludes this with the half-verse 'tasmat' (therefore). Since the knowledge of such a nature of the Self is the remover of the cause of grief, when that [knowledge] exists, grief is not proper. Because, in the absence of the cause, the absence of the effect is inevitable. The intention is: The grief you felt while not knowing the Self was indeed plausible; but having known the Self, you ought not to grieve.

'Avyakta'—means not graspable by worldly senses. 'Achintya'—means inaccessible even to the mind. 'Avikarya'—means devoid of modification, or unmodifiable by actions.

This [Self], due to being all-pervading everywhere, is described as 'Pratyaksha' (evident/direct). 'Uchyate' (It is said) means [described] by the Vedas, and It is of that nature.

He states the purpose for which this was said with 'tasmat' (therefore). Therefore, having known This [Self] as possessing the previously mentioned attributes, you ought not to grieve.

Since It is not an object of any instrument (senses), It is not manifested; hence this Self is 'Avyakta' (Unmanifest). Therefore indeed, It is 'Achintya' (Inconceivable). For whatever is within the scope of the senses becomes an object of thought. But this Self, being beyond the scope of the senses, is inconceivable.

Therefore indeed, It is 'Avikarya' (Unchangeable). Just as milk becomes modified through curdling agents, etc., this Self is not like that. Also, due to being partless, It is immutable. For indeed, nothing that is partless is seen to be of the nature of modification. Being immutable, this Self is called 'Avikarya'.

Therefore, having known this Self in the manner described, you ought not to grieve, thinking 'I am their killer, they are being killed by me.'

Accepting the non-eternalness of the Self [for the sake of argument], this is said...

'Avyakto'yam' (This is unmanifest)—It is 'Akshara' (Imperishable) and in reality 'Achintya' (Inconceivable). Based on the statement: 'That which is beyond the Prakritis (nature/elements) is the characteristic of the Inconceivable.'

Objection: 'The "Unmanifest" of such nature is well-known as the "Pradhana" (Primordial Matter); is that alone being described?' If this is asked, regarding that He says 'avikaryo'yam' (This is unchangeable). The meaning is that the Pradhana is mutable (whereas the Self is not).

Therefore, having known this Self to be of such nature, you ought not to grieve.

अव्यक्तः unmanifested? अयम् this (Self)? अचिन्त्यः unthinkable? अयम् this? अविकार्यः unchangeable? अयम् this? उच्यते is said? तस्मात् therefore? एवम् thus? विदित्वा having known? एनम् this? न not? अनुशोचितुम् to grieve? अर्हसि (thou) oughtest.Commentary The Self is not an object of perception. It can hardly be seen by the physical eyes. Therefore? the Self is unmanifested. That which is seen by the eyes becomes an object of thought. As the Self cannot be perceived by the eyes? It is unthinkable. Milk when mixed with buttermilk changes its form. The Self cannot change Its form like milk. Hence? It is changeless and immutable. Therefore? thus understanding the Self? thou shouldst not mourn. Thou shouldst not think also that thou art their slayer and that they are killed by thee.

Moreover, ucyate, it is said that; ayam, This, the Self; is avyaktah, unmanifest, since, being beyond the ken of all the organs, It cannot be objectified. For this very reason, ayam, This; is acintyah, inconceivable. For anything that comes within the purview of the organs becomes the object of thought. But this Self is inconceivable becuase It is not an object of the organs. Hence, indeed, It is avikaryah, unchangeable. This Self does not change as milk does when mixed with curd, a curdling medium, etc. And It is chnageless owing to partlessness, for it is not seen that any non-composite thing is changeful. Not being subject to transformation, It is said to be changeless. Tasmat, therefore; vidivata, having known; enam, this one, the Self; evam, thus, as described; na arhasi, you ought not; anusocitum, to grieve, thinking, 'I am the slayer of these; these are killed by me.'

The self is not made manifest by those Pramanas (means of knowledge) by which objects susceptible of being cleft etc., are made manifest; hence It is unmanifest, being different in kind from objects susceptible to cleaving etc., It is inconceivable, being different in kind from all objects. As It does not possess the essential nature of any of them. It cannot even be conceived. Therefore, It is unchanging, incapable of modifications. So knowing this self to be possessed of the above mentioned alities, it does not become you to feel grief for Its sake.