FolioCorpusBhagavad-gītā

Bhagavad-gītā 2.19

య ఏనం వేత్తి హన్తారం యశ్చైనం మన్యతే హతమ్ । ఉభౌ తౌ న విజానీతో నాయం హన్తి న హన్యతే ॥ ౧౯ ॥
ya enaṁ vetti hantāraṁ
[ya enam vetti hantaaram]
yaś cainaṁ manyate hatam
[yash chainam manyate hatam]
ubhau tau na vijānīto
[ubhau tau na vijaaneeto]
nāyaṁ hanti na hanyate
[naayam hanti na hanyate]
Word-for-word
yaḥ — anyone who enam — this vetti — knows hantāram — the killer yaḥ — anyone who ca — also enam — this manyate — thinks hatam — killed ubhau — both tau — they na — never vijānītaḥ — are in knowledge na — never ayam — this hanti — kills na — nor hanyate — is killed .
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
ya enaṁ vetti hantāraṁ
yaḥ
anyone who
enam
this
vetti
knows
hantāram
the killer
yaś cainaṁ manyate hatam
yaḥ
anyone who
ca
also
enam
this
manyate
thinks
hatam
killed
ubhau tau na vijānīto
ubhau
both
tau
they
na
never
vijānītaḥ
are in knowledge
nāyaṁ hanti na hanyate
na
never
ayam
this
hanti
kills
na
nor
hanyate
is killed .
Important Words
  • hantāram — the slayer
    Accusative of hantṛ — agent of √han. The would-be slayer's claim is the false agency the verse cuts down. Kṛṣṇa attacks the doership-identification at the front: 'I am killing.'
  • hatam — slain
    Past participle of √han. Symmetric to hantāram. The victim's claim — 'I am being killed' — is equally false. Both ends of the killing relation are illusory at the level of the soul.
  • ubhau — both
    Dual. The verse pairs them deliberately: slayer and slain share a single ignorance. Neither has knowledge (vijānītaḥ). The categories themselves do not apply at the level of the ātmā.
  • vijānītaḥ — they two know
    Dual present of vi-√jñā — to know discriminatively. The two of them do *not* know. The verb is negated to mark a precise epistemic failure: they lack vijñāna, the discriminating knowledge that distinguishes soul from body.
  • hanyate — is slain
    Present passive. The soul is not *being slain*. Echoes Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.1.18 — hantā cen manyate hantum — which the verse nearly quotes. The Gītā stands inside the Upaniṣadic tradition openly here.
Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer nor he who thinks it slain is in knowledge, for the self slays not nor is slain.
Purport

When an embodied living entity is hurt by fatal weapons, it is to be known that the living entity within the body is not killed. The spirit soul is so small that it is impossible to kill him by any material weapon, as will be evident from subsequent verses. Nor is the living entity killable, because of his spiritual constitution. What is killed, or is supposed to be killed, is the body only. This, however, does not at all encourage killing of the body. The Vedic injunction is mā hiṁsyāt sarvā bhūtāni: never commit violence to anyone. Nor does understanding that the living entity is not killed encourage animal slaughter. Killing the body of anyone without authority is abominable and is punishable by the law of the state as well as by the law of the Lord. Arjuna, however, is being engaged in killing for the principle of religion, and not whimsically.

— A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda
Gauḍīya Ācāryas
Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura Gauḍīya
Translation
19. Those who think that the soul kills and those who think that the soul is killed do not know that the soul does not kill or get killed.
Commentary

“O friend Arjuna! You, a soul as well, are neither the performer of killing nor the object of killing.” That is expressed in this verse.

He who thinks the jīva (enam) is the killer—that Arjuna is the killer of Bhīṣma and others, and he who thinks that the jīva is killed—that Arjuna is killed by Bhīṣma, are both ignorant. Therefore, what is your fear of infamy from the words of ignorant people who say that Arjuna killed his guru?

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Gauḍīya
Translation
19. Those who think that the soul kills and those who think that the soul is killed do not know. The soul does not kill or get killed.
Commentary

In this verse Kṛṣṇa confirms the indestructible nature of the soul. That person who thinks that the jīva with such an indestructible nature is a killer, using a sword or other instrument, and thinks that such a jīva is harmed by the sword, does not know. That ātmā, a very fine particle of consciousness, which cannot be cut or transformed in any way, is not a killer nor is it killed. It is neither the performer of the act of killing nor the subject of killing. One should understand that there is no destruction of the ātmā simply by separation of the ātmā from the body. The śruti also makes such statements: hantā cen manyate hantuṁ hataś cen manyate hatam ubhau tau na vijānīto nāyaṁ hanti na hanyate If the killer thinks that he kills or the killed person thinks that he has been killed, both do not know the nature of the soul. He does not kill or get killed. Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.19 In statements such as mā hiṁsyāt sarva-bhūtāni (do not harm any living entity) [Note: The source is not traceable, though it is quoted by Baladeva and Rāmanuja several times. Na hiṁsyāt sarva bhūtāni is found in Mahabhārata, as mentioned earlier.] the violence is explained as violence concerning the separation of ātmā from the body. The statement does not prove that the ātmā is the killer, since the ātmā (which is not killed) exists even when separated from his body.

Bhūrijana Dāsa Gauḍīya
Commentary

If one thinks that he is the "doer", than he is not in knowledge. If one thinks that someone is being slain he is not in knowledge.

Study Notes — Gauranga Priya Dāsa
Gauranga Priya Dāsa Study
Bhakti-śāstrī Notes, ISKCON Chowpatty (2009)
Theme

The soul can neither kill nor is killed

“Neither he who thinks the living entity to be the slayer, nor he who thinks it slain is in knowledge, for the self slays not, nor is slain”
Focus of Learning

(a) Body:

Body is perishable by nature – may perish immediately or after a hundred years
Basis of acquiring material bodies
One acquires body according to one’s work
Practical application: Observance of religious principles should to utilized to elevate because one acquires the body according to one’s work

(b) Soul:

Soul as indestructible – The soul is too minute to be seen by the enemy what to speak of being killed
Soul as immeasurable – It is too small to be measured

(c) How does this verse help Arjuna to overcome lamentation and material compassion

Because the living entity cannot be killed
Nor can the material body be saved for any length of time

(d) The Spirit soul is important, not the body because

As soon as the spirit soul is out of the body, the body begins to decompose
Ref. Vedanta Sutra: Analogy – The living entity is qualified as light, because of being the part and parcel of the Supreme light

(e) Practical application for Arjuna based on this verse:

He is advised to fight
Not sacrifice the cause of religion for material, bodily considerations

(h) Analogy to compare soul and Supersoul

Such atomic particles of spirit whole are compared to sunshine molecules
The fragmental parts of the Supreme Lord are atomic sparks of the rays of the Supreme Lord, called by the name ‘prabha’ or superior energy

(i) Hatha-yoga and purification of soul

Purpose of Hatha-yoga – This is meant to control the five kinds of life airs:
Not for material benefit
But for liberation of minute soul from the material atmosphere
How this control is practiced – By different sitting postures
Classical Ācāryas
Śrī Śaṅkarācārya Classical
Translation
2.19 But the ideas that you have, 'Bhisma and others are neing killed by me in war; I am surely their killer' this idea of yours is false. How? Yah, he who; vetti, thinks; of enam, this One, the embodied One under consideration; as hantaram, the killer, the agent of the act of killing; ca, and; yah, he who, the other who; manyate, thinks; of enam, this One; as hatam, the killed (who thinks) 'When the body is killed, I am myself killed; I become the object of the act of killing'; ubhau tau, both of them; owing to non-discrimination, na, do not; vijanitah, know the Self which is the subject of the consciousness of 'I'. The meaning is: On the killing of the body, he who thinks of the Self ( the content of the consciousness of 'I' ) [The Ast. omits this phrase from the precedig sentence and includes it in this place. The A.A. has this phrase in both the places.-Tr.] as 'I am the killer', and he who thinks, 'I have been killed', both of them are ignorant of the nature of the Self. For, ayam, this Self; owing to Its changelessness, na hanti, does not kill, does not become the agent of the act of killing; na hanyate, nor is It killed, i.e. It does not become the object (of the act of killing). The second verse is to show how the Self is changeless:
Śrī Rāmānujācārya Classical
Translation
2.19 With regard to "This" viz., the self, whose nature has been described above, he who thinks of It as the slayer, i.e., as the cause of slaying, and he who thinks 'This' (self) as slain by some cause or other - both of them do not know. As this self is eternal for the reasons mentioned above, no possible cause of destruction can slay It and for the same reason, It cannot be slain. Though the root 'han' (to slay) has the self for its object, it signifies causing the separation of the body from the self and not destruction of the self. Scriptural texts like 'You shall not cause injury to beings' and 'The Brahmana shall not be killed'? (K. Sm. 8.2) indicate unsanctioned actions, causing separation of the body from the self. [In the above otes, slaughter in an ethical sense is referred to, while the text refers to killing or separating the self from the body in a metaphsyical sense. This is made explicit in the following verse].
Śrī Abhinavagupta Classical
Translation
2.19 Ya enam etc. Whosoever veiws This i.e., the Self and the body, to be the slayer and the slain, ignorance is in him. That is why he is in bondage. The same [point the Lord] clarifies -
Swami Sivananda Classical
Translation
2.19 He who takes the Self to be the slayer and he who thinks It is slain, neither of them ï1knowsï1. It slays not, nor is It slain.
Commentary

2.19 यः he who? एनम् this (Self)? वेत्ति knows? हन्तारम् slayer? यः he who? च and? एनम् this? मन्यते thinks? हतम् slain? उभौ both? तौ those? न not? विजानीतः know? न not? अयम् this? हन्ति slays? न not? हन्यते is slain.Commentary -- The Self is nondoer (Akarta) and as It is immutable? It is neither the agent nor the object of the act of slaying. He who thinks I slay or I am slain with the body or the Ahamkara (ego)? he does not really comprehend the true nature of the Self. The Self is indestructible. It exists in the three periods of time. It is Sat (Existence). When the body is destroyed? the Self is not destroyed. The body has to undergo change in any case. It is inevitable. But the Self is not at all affected by it. Verses 19? 20? 21? 23 and 24 speak of the immortality of the Self or Atman. (Cf.XVIII.17)

Swami Gambhīrānanda Classical
Translation
2.19 He who thinks of this One as the killer, and he who thinks of this One as the killed both of them do not know. This One does not kill, nor is It killed.
Shri Purohit Swami Classical
Translation
2.19 He who thinks that the Spirit kills, and he who thinks of It as killed, are both ignorant. The Spirit kills not, nor is It killed.
Related values & verses
Related values
Tyaga (Renunciation / Letting Go)Ahimsa (Non-violence / Compassion)Tapas (Austerity / Discipline)Guru Bhakti (Reverence for Teacher)Atma Nigraha (Self-control)Daksya (Resourcefulness / Skill)Maitri (Friendship / Goodwill)Abhaya (Fearlessness)
Related verses
BG 2.20 BG 2.21 BG 13.32 SB 3.27.1 SB 6.16.9 SB 11.22.51 CC Madhya 20.108 CC Madhya 22.30 CC Madhya 24.71 Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.19Īśa Upaniṣad 8
Related lectures
Personal Guidance
He who thinks he kills, and he who thinks he is killed — both are ignorant; the soul neither kills nor is killed.
Practical Applications
  • Resign from being either the doer of all your acts or the perpetual victim.
  • When you 'cause' an outcome, recall that you are an instrument, not the originator.
  • Examine where you have been carrying false guilt or false credit.
Reflection Questions
  • What am I carrying credit or blame for that the soul never truly did?
  • Where am I living as 'the one who kills' or 'the one who is killed'?
Analogy

Both the man who claims to have lit the lamp and the man who claims to have put it out misunderstand fire: fire is itself, neither produced by the wick nor abolished by the wind. The soul-slayer and the slain are both clinging to a misconception of who is acting and who is being acted upon.

📝 My note

Source: vedabase.io

← Read full Chapter 2