BHAGAVAT GEETHA – CHAPTER 2 – SAMKHYA YOGA – THE YOGA OF KNOWLEDGE (Part – 4)

–>  Previous set of tweets

2.153

य एनं वेत्ति हन्तारं यश्चैनं मन्यते हतम् ।

उभौ तौ न विजानीतो नायं हन्ति न हन्यते ॥ १९ ॥

2.154. He who holds the Aatman as slayer and he who considers It as slain, both are ignorant. Aatman neither slays nor is it slain.

2.155. To say that which cannot be slain as being slain and to claim it as slayer comes from lack of discrimination of the real and the unreal.

2.156.

न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वाभविता वा न भूयः ।

अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे ॥ २० ॥

2.157. THIS SELF IS NEVER BORN, IT NEVER DIES EITHER. HAVING BEEN BORN IT NEVER CEASES TO BE, AGAIN. 1/2

2.158. UNBORN, ETERNAL AND EVERLASTING THIS ANCIENT ONE IS NOT SLAIN WHEN THE BODY IS SLAIN. 2/2

2.159. न जायते न उत्पद्यते, जनिलक्षणा वस्तुविक्रिया न आत्मनो विद्यते इत्यर्थः ।

2.160. The sense is that the trasnformation known as birth and death does not happen to the Self.

2.161. The phrase at any time (कदाचित् ) is associated with the negation of all transformations.

2.162. It means at no time whatsoever is It born and at no time does It die and so on.

2.163. Because, having been, meaning having experienced the state of being, this Self does not again reach the state of non-being.

2.164. Let us put it this way. The body ceases to exist after death but the Self does not cease to exist.

2.165. Therefore, It does not die.

2.166. What is birth? That which having been non-existent, comes into being, is said to be born. Such birth does not exist for the Self. Why?

2.167. Because unlike the body the Self did exist before birth. Therefore it is not born.

2.168. THAT WHICH HAVING BEEN NON-EXISTENT COMING INTO EXISTENCE IS BIRTH. THE SELF EXISTED BEFORE AND SO IT IS NOT BORN.

2.169. THAT WHICH HAVING BEEN EXISTENT CEASES TO BE IS CALLED DEATH. THE SELF EXISTS FOR EVER SO IT HAS NO DEATH.

2.170. The Self is everlasting and therefore transformations such as youth etc does not occur in it.

2.171. Being devoid of attributes (such as kaumaram, yavvanam, jaraa) It has no decay and this proves it is impartite.

2.172. What develops through the accession of parts is said to grow. Since it has no parts, it has no growth or change or decay.

2.173. That which has no parts consequently it has no growth and no decay and is therefore ever new, ever fresh.

2.174.  य एनं वेत्ति हन्तारं (tweet 2.153), Krishna affirmed this Self is neither the agent nor an object of slaying because of Its immutability.

2.175.

वेदाविनाशिनं नित्यं य एनमजमव्ययम् ।

कथं स पुरुषः पार्थ कं घातयति हन्ति कम् ॥ २१ ॥

2.176. How can a man, O Arjuna! who knows It as imperishable, the eternal, the unborn, the undecaying cause to kill anyone. Whom can He slay?

2.177. He who knows the Self as imperishable, how can he slay or be slain when he fights as a matter of duty?

2.178. BY TAKING THE EXAMPLE OF SLAYING & ITS IMPACT ON THE SELF, KRISHNA ACTUALLY POINTS OUT THAT ALL ACTIONS HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE SELF.

2.179. Through agnyaanam (ignorance) the immutable Self is deemed a knower of both the sense objects and of the Self itself.

2.180. The Self is supposed to know the objects such as sound etc. presented to the intellect. How does this happen?

2.181. Because there is lack of discrimination the Self from the modification of the intellect. That is..

2.182. The Self is said to know by virtue of the intellect’s modification of discrimination between the Self and the non-self.

2.183. Metaphysically, this knowledge by discrimination, too, is unreal!

2.184. विदुष— कर्मासम्भववचनात् यानि कर्माणि शास्त्रेण विधीयन्ते तानि अविदुषो विहितानि इति भगवतो निश्चयोऽवगम्यते ॥

2.185. On the basis of Bhagavan’s teaching, it is impossible for the Self-knower to act.

2.186. Whatever actions have been enjoined by the Sastras have reference only to the non-knower.

2.187. An objection could be raised: The knowledge has been enjoined on the non-knower only. 1/3

2.188. For those who know the enjoying of knowledge is pointless like the grinding of corn already ground. 2/3

2.189. Therefore the distinction that action is enjoined only on the non-knower & not the knower is illogical. 3/3

2.190. Answer: No, the distinction between the existence and non-existence is sound only in regard to what is to be accomplished.

2.191. After knowing the sense of injuctions of dos and donts, an Agnihotri for eg. assembles materials and performs.

2.192. Such is the condition of the non-knower of the Self who thinks I am an agent. I have to perform this.

2.193. But it is different in the case of one who masters the sense of propositions like “This Self is never born”.

2.194. After acquiring the knowledge (of the real Self) he has no ritualistic actions to perform.

2.195. On the dawn of the knowledge that the self is a non-agent, non-experiecer and so forth, no action supervenes him.

2.196. A distinction like this is logical. On the other hand to the one who thinks I am an agent, the next thought is: “I must perform.”

2.197. As regards such actions, he is obliged to follow the role of an agent. In his case the actions are performable.

2.198. THEREFORE BOTH THE SELF-KNOWER PERCEIVING THE IMMUTABILITY OF THE SELF AND THE SEEKER AFTER LIBERATION MUST RENOUNCED VEDA ENJOINED KARMAS.

2.199. तत्र केचित्पण्डितंमन्या वदन्ति — ‘जन्मादिषड्भावविक्रियारहितः अविक्रियः अकर्ता एकः अहमात्मा’ इति न कस्यचित् ज्ञानम् उत्पद्यते, यस्मिन् सति सर्वकर्मसंन्यासः उपदिश्यते इति ।

2.200. Some self-styled scholars say: None can acquire the knowledge “I am the Self”, that is the one who is a non-agent, who is immutable, 1/3

2.201. and who is free from the six transformations like birth and so forth, 2/3

2.202. that very knowledge by virtue of which the renunciation of all works is enjoined. 3/3

2.203. Such contention is untenable because it will stultify the Saastraic teaching as regards the Self such as “It is not born etc.”

2.204. If Sastra is accepted regarding dharma and adharma then why not also accept that knowledge of the Self it imparts?

2.205. And these self-styled scholars reply that the knowledge of the self is beyond the range of senses.

2.206. But the very same sastra stipulates “by the mind alone this Self is to be perceived.” ‘मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’ (बृ. उ. ४-४-१९)

2.207. How does the mind perceive the Self?

2.208. Purified by the Sastras and by the Guru and by control of itself and of the senses, this means of perception of the Self occurs.

–> Next set of tweets

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s