Chapter 18 - Verse 17

He whose mind has been well trained in the scriptures, well-trained by a master’s instructions, and well-trained in the sound principles of reasoning, is free from the egotistic notion that’ I am the agent.’ He thinks thus: It is these five—the body, etc., ascribed to the Self through avidya—that are the causes of all action, not I. I am the witness of their actions. I am “without breath, without mind, pure, higher than the Indestructible which is Supreme” (Mund. Up. 2-1-2). I am pure and immutable. He whose antah-karana (buddhi), which is an upadhi of the Self, is not tainted, does not repent thus: “I have done this : thereby I shall go to naraka (hell).” He is wise: he sees rightly : though he kills all these living creatures, he commits no act of killing, nor is he bound by the fruit of a-dharma as an effect of that act.

(Objection) :—Even supposing that this is intended as a mere praise, the statement that “though he kills all these creatures, he does not kill” involves a self-contradiction.

(Answer) :—This objection cannot stand; for, the statement can be explained by distinguishing the two standpoints of worldly conception and absolute truth. From the stand-point of worldly conception, which consists in thinking ‘I am the killer’ by identifying the Self with the physical body etc., the Lord says, “though he kills;” and from the stand-point of absolute truth explained above, He says. ‘he kills not, he is not bound.’ Thus both are quite explicable.

(Objection) :—The Self does act in conjunction with the body, etc., as implied by the use of the word ‘pure’ in xviii. 16, ‘he who looks on the pure Self as the agent.’

(Answer) :—This contention is untenable; for the Self being, by nature, immutable, we cannot conceive Him to act in conjunction with the body, etc. What is subject to change can alone conjoin with others, and thus conjoined can become the agent. But there can be no conjunction of the immutable Self with anything whatsoever, and He cannot therefore act in conjunction with another. Thus, the isolated condition being natural condition. And His immutability is quite evident to all, as taught by the sruti, smriti and reason. In the Gītā itself, for instance, it has been over and over again taught in the words, “He is unchangeable” (ii. 25) : “actions are wrought by gunas” (III. 27); “though dwelling in the body, he acts not” (xiii. 31). And the same thing is also taught in the passages of the sruti such as “It meditates as it were, It moves as it were” (Bri Up. 4-3-7). By reasoning also we may establish the same. thus :—That the Self is an entity without parts, is not dependent on another, and is immutable, is the royal road (i.e., is undisputed). Even if it be admitted that the Self is subject to change, He should only be subject to a change of His own; the actions of the body, etc., can never be attributed to the agency of the Self. Indeed, the action of one cannot go to another that has not done it. And what is attributed to the Self by avidya cannot really pertain to Him, in the same way that the mother-of-pearl cannot become silver, or (to take another illustration) in the same way that surface and dirt ascribed by children through ignorance to akasa cannot really pertain to akasa. Accordingly, any changes that may take place in the body, etc., belong to them only, not to the Self. Wherefore, it is but right to say that in the absence of egotism and of all taint in the mind, the wise man neither kills nor is bound.

Having started this proposition in the words “he slays not, nor is he slain;” (ii. 19) having stated in ii. 20 as the reason therefore the immutability of the Self, having in the beginning of the sastra (ii. 21) briefly taught that to a wise man there is no need for works, and having introduced the subject here and there in the middle and expatiated upon it, the Lord now concludes it in the words that the wise man “kills not, nor is bound” with a view to sum up the teaching of the sastra. Thus in the absence of the egotistic feeling of embodied existence, the samnyasins renounce all avidya-generated action, and it is therefore right to say that the threefold fruit of action “evil, good and mixed” (xviii. 12), does not accrue to the samnyasins; and the further conclusion also is inevitable that quite the reverse is the lot of others. This teaching of the Gitasastra has been concluded here. To show that this essence of the whole Vedic Teaching should be investigated and understood by wise men of trained intelligence, it has been expounded by us here and there in several sections in accordance with the scripture (sastra) and reason.

The impulses to action.

Now will be mentioned the impulses to action :