back to questions
Bhagavad-Gītā with Śaṅkara's bhāṣya · 2.17
avināśi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idaṃ tatam | vināśam avyayasyāsya na kaścit kartum arhati
Translation. But know that Brahman (brahman), called Being (sat), to be imperishable,
by which this whole world is pervaded.
No one can bring about the destruction—
the disappearance into nonexistence—of this unchanging Brahman.
Grammar check: 15 words pass / 0 flagged / 0 beyond the checkerPāṇini-verified
Every word's claimed grammar is re-derived with vidyut-prakriya, software implementing Pāṇini's rules. Flags are shown, never hidden; some are the text taking epic or Vedic liberties the classical rules do not generate.
Word by word
| surface | lemma | grammar |
|---|
| avināśi | avināśin | pass |
| tu | tu | pass |
| tat | tad | pass |
| viddhi | vid | pass |
| yena | yad | pass |
| sarvam | sarva | pass |
| idam | idam | pass |
| tatam | tata | pass |
| vināśam | vināśa | pass |
| avyayasya | avyaya | pass |
| asya | idam | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| kaścit | kaścit | pass |
| kartum | kṛ | pass |
| arhati | arh | pass |
How the commentary settled it
Where the verse alone is ambiguous, the reading follows Śaṅkara's commentary; the deciding lines are quoted below each decision.
Translate tu contrastively as “but”: it distinguishes the imperishable real, Brahman, from the unreal discussed in the preceding context.→ A contrastive marker: “but.”
gita [2]tu-śabdo 'sato viśeṣaṇārthaḥ |
The word tu is for distinguishing [the real] from the unreal.
Construe avināśi as a neuter accusative predicate agreeing with the object tat: tat avināśi viddhi, “know that to be imperishable.” Its negative formation is represented as a nañ-tatpuruṣa, while Śaṅkara expands the derivative semantically as possessing a nature that does not perish.→ Predicative accusative, “know that to be imperishable.”
gita [1]avināśi na vinaṣṭuṃ śīlaṃ yasyeti |
“Imperishable”: that whose nature is not to perish.
gita [3]tat viddhi vijānīhi |
Know that; understand it.
Take yena as the instrumental agent of tatam and identify the relative pronoun’s referent—and therefore tat—as Brahman called Being (sat).→ Instrumental agent: the whole world is pervaded by Brahman called Being.
gita [4]kim ? yena sarvam idaṃ jagat tataṃ vyāptaṃ sad-ākhyena brahmaṇā sākāśam, ākāśenaiva ghaṭādayaḥ |
What [is that]? That by which this whole world, including space, is spread—pervaded by Brahman called Being—as pots and the like are [pervaded] by space itself.
Analyze sarvam idam (with the commentary’s jagat) and tatam as a neuter nominative singular subject-predicate complex. Tata is passive, “pervaded,” rather than active or merely “extended.”→ Nominative sarvam idam jagat with passive nominative tatam: “this whole world is pervaded.”
gita [4]kim ? yena sarvam idaṃ jagat tataṃ vyāptaṃ sad-ākhyena brahmaṇā sākāśam, ākāśenaiva ghaṭādayaḥ |
What [is that]? That by which this whole world, including space, is spread—pervaded by Brahman called Being—as pots and the like are [pervaded] by space itself.
Render vināśa not only as physical destruction but, in Śaṅkara’s stricter ontological gloss, as disappearance or nonexistence.→ “Destruction—the disappearance into nonexistence.”
gita [5]vināśam adarśanam abhāvam |
“Destruction”: nonappearance, nonexistence.
Render avyaya as “unchanging,” specifically what undergoes neither increase nor decrease and does not depart from its own nature. Construe avyayasya asya as a genitive dependent on vināśam, with brahmaṇaḥ supplied by the commentary.→ “Of this unchanging Brahman.”
gita [6]avyayasya na vyeti upacayāpacayau na yāti iti avyayaṃ tasya avyayasya |
“Of the unchanging”: it does not change—it does not undergo increase or decrease—hence it is avyaya; “of that avyaya.”
gita [7, 8]naitat sadākhyaṃ brahma svena rūpeṇa vyeti vyabhicarati, niravayavatvāt, dehādivat |
nāpy ātmīyena, ātmīyābhāvāt |
This Brahman called Being does not change or depart from its own form, because it is partless, unlike a body and the like. Nor does it change through something belonging to it, because it has no such possession.
gita [10]ato 'vyayasya asya brahmaṇaḥ vināśaṃ na kaścit kartum arhati, na kaścit atmānaṃ vināśayituṃ śaknoti īśvaro 'pi |
Therefore no one can bring about the destruction of this unchanging Brahman; no one—not even the Lord—is able to destroy the self. The plaintext’s atmānaṃ is likely a typographical error for ātmānam.
Analyze kartum as the infinitive of kṛ and understand kartum arhati as expressing capability, not merit, obligation, or permission: “can bring about.”→ “Can/is able to bring about.”
gita [10]ato 'vyayasya asya brahmaṇaḥ vināśaṃ na kaścit kartum arhati, na kaścit atmānaṃ vināśayituṃ śaknoti īśvaro 'pi |
Therefore no one can bring about the destruction of this unchanging Brahman; no one—not even the Lord—is able to destroy the self. The plaintext’s atmānaṃ is likely a typographical error for ātmānam.
Take na kaścit absolutely: no agent whatsoever, including the Lord, can destroy Brahman. Śaṅkara grounds this not in a contingent limitation of power but in the contradiction involved in action upon one’s own self, since the self is Brahman.→ An absolute impossibility applying even to the Lord.
gita [10]ato 'vyayasya asya brahmaṇaḥ vināśaṃ na kaścit kartum arhati, na kaścit atmānaṃ vināśayituṃ śaknoti īśvaro 'pi |
Therefore no one can bring about the destruction of this unchanging Brahman; no one—not even the Lord—is able to destroy the self. The plaintext’s atmānaṃ is likely a typographical error for ātmānam.
gita [11]ātmā hi brahma, svātmani ca kriyāvirodhāt ||bhgs_2.17||
For the self is Brahman, and action upon one’s own self is contradictory.
Śaṅkara's commentary on this unit
1avināśi na vinaṣṭuṃ śīlaṃ yasyeti |
2tu-śabdo 'sato viśeṣaṇārthaḥ |
3tat viddhi vijānīhi |
4kim ? yena sarvam idaṃ jagat tataṃ vyāptaṃ sad-ākhyena brahmaṇā sākāśam, ākāśenaiva ghaṭādayaḥ |
5vināśam adarśanam abhāvam |
6avyayasya na vyeti upacayāpacayau na yāti iti avyayaṃ tasya avyayasya |
7naitat sadākhyaṃ brahma svena rūpeṇa vyeti vyabhicarati, niravayavatvāt, dehādivat |
8nāpy ātmīyena, ātmīyābhāvāt |
9yathā devadatto dhana-hānyā vyeti, na tu evaṃ brahma vyeti |
10ato 'vyayasya asya brahmaṇaḥ vināśaṃ na kaścit kartum arhati, na kaścit atmānaṃ vināśayituṃ śaknoti īśvaro 'pi |
11ātmā hi brahma, svātmani ca kriyāvirodhāt ||bhgs_2.17||
12kiṃ punas tad asat yat svātma-sattāṃ vyabhicaratīti, ucyate -