back to questions
Bhagavad-Gītā with Śaṅkara's bhāṣya · 2.18
antavanta ime dehā nityasyoktāḥ śarīriṇaḥ | anāśino 'prameyasya tasmād yudhyasva bhārata
Translation. These bodies of the eternal embodied Self (ātman)—imperishable and not delimitable as an object by any means of knowledge (aprameya)—are said to have an end;
therefore fight, O Bhārata.
Grammar check: 11 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 |
|---|
| antavantaḥ | antavat | pass |
| ime | idam | pass |
| dehāḥ | deha | pass |
| nityasya | nitya | pass |
| uktāḥ | ukta | pass |
| śarīriṇaḥ | śarīrin | pass |
| anāśinaḥ | anāśin | pass |
| aprameyasya | aprameya | pass |
| tasmāt | tasmāt | pass |
| yudhyasva | yudh | pass |
| bhārata | bhārata | 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.
antavantaḥ is the predicate of ime dehāḥ, and uktāḥ agrees with the same nominative plural subject: these bodies are ‘said to have an end.’ Anta is specifically glossed as destruction, while the mirage analogy shows that the end can be the cessation of a falsely continued cognition, not merely physical annihilation.→ ‘These bodies are said to have an end.’
gita [1]antaḥ vināśaḥ vidyate yeṣāṃ te antavantaḥ |
Those for whom an end—destruction—exists are antavantaḥ.
gita [2]yathā mṛgatṛṣṇikādau sad-buddhiḥ anuvṛttā pramāṇanirūpaṇānte vicchidyate, sa tasya antaḥ |
Just as the cognition of reality continued with regard to a mirage and the like ceases at the conclusion of an examination by the means of knowledge, that is its end.
gita [3]tathā ime dehāḥ
Likewise, these bodies...
gita [3]ātmano 'ntavanta iti uktāḥ vivekibhirity arthaḥ |
The meaning is that they are said by discerning persons to have an end as bodies of the Self.
śarīriṇaḥ and anāśinaḥ are genitive singular despite their formal ambiguity with nominative plural. Together with nityasya and aprameyasya, they form one genitive cluster referring to the singular ātman; śarīrin is glossed as śarīravat, ‘possessing a body.’→ All four forms describe the singular embodied Self in the genitive: ‘of the eternal embodied Self, imperishable and aprameya.’
gita [3]nityasya śarīriṇaḥ śarīravato 'nāśino
Of the eternal embodied one—of the one possessing a body—of the imperishable one...
gita [3]ātmano 'ntavanta iti uktāḥ
They are said to have an end as [bodies] of the Self.
nitya and anāśin are retained as distinct descriptions, not collapsed as redundant synonyms. Śaṅkara distinguishes destruction as disappearance from destruction as alteration; anāśin excludes both and prevents ātman’s eternity from being understood like the qualified eternity of earth and the other elements. The negative relation also supports the nañ-tatpuruṣa analysis na nāśī.→ ‘Eternal’ and ‘imperishable’ are both expressed.
gita [4]nityasya anāśinaḥ iti na punaruktam |
‘Eternal’ and ‘imperishable’ are not a repetition.
gita [6]yathā deho bhasmībhūto 'darśanaṃ gato naṣṭa ucyate |
For example, a body reduced to ashes and gone out of sight is said to be destroyed.
gita [7]vidyamāno 'pi yathā anyathā pariṇato vyādhyādi-yukto jāto naṣṭa ucyate |
Likewise, even while continuing to exist, when transformed otherwise and afflicted by disease and so forth, it is said to be destroyed.
gita [9, 10]anyathā pṛthivyādivad api nityatvaṃ syāt ātmanaḥ | tat mā bhūditi nityasya anāśinaḥ ityāha |
Otherwise the Self’s eternity could be like that of earth and the other elements. Lest that be so, the text says ‘eternal, imperishable.’
aprameya is not rendered simply as spatially ‘immeasurable’ or as ‘unknowable.’ Its nañ relation is explicitly na prameya, and Śaṅkara explains it as not circumscribable by perception and other means of knowledge. This does not make the Self unknown: it is self-established, while scripture removes superimposed attributes rather than disclosing a previously unknown object. Line 11’s aprameyamya is an evident plaintext error for aprameyasya.→ ‘Not delimitable as an object by any means of knowledge (aprameya).’
gita [11]aprameyamya na prameyasya pratyakṣādi-pramāṇaiḥ aparicchādyasyety arthaḥ ||
[For aprameyasya:] ‘not an object of knowledge,’ meaning not circumscribable by perception and the other means of knowledge.
gita [14]ātmanaḥ svataḥsiddhatvāt |
Because the Self is established by itself.
gita [18]śāstraṃ tu antyaṃ pramāṇam atad-dharmādhyāropaṇa-mātra-nivartakatvena pramāṇatvam ātmanaḥ pratipadyate, na hy ajñātārthajñāpakatvena |
Scripture, the final means of knowledge, has validity concerning the Self solely by removing the superimposition of attributes that do not belong to it, not by making an unknown object known.
tasmāt connects the command with the Self’s eternity and immutability. Although yudhyasva is morphologically an imperative, Śaṅkara denies that it institutes a new obligation to wage war: Arjuna was already engaged in battle, and Kṛṣṇa merely removes the grief-and-delusion obstruction that made him stop.→ ‘Therefore fight,’ understood as a restatement and removal of cessation, not a new war-injunction.
gita [20]yasmād evaṃ nityo 'vikriyaś cātmā tasmād yudhyasva, yuddhād uparamaṃ mā kārṣīḥ ity arthaḥ |
Because the Self is thus eternal and immutable, therefore fight; the meaning is, ‘Do not desist from battle.’
gita [21, 22]na hy atra yuddha-kartavyatā vidhīyate, yuddhe pravṛtta eva hi asau śoka-moha-pratibaddhaḥ tūṣṇīm āste | ataḥ tasya pratibandhāpanayana-mātraṃ bhagavatā kriyate |
No obligation to fight is enjoined here. He was already engaged in battle but remains silent, obstructed by grief and delusion. Therefore the Lord merely removes his obstruction.
gita [23]tasmād yudhyasva iti anuvāda-mātram, na vidhiḥ ||bhgs_2.18||
Thus ‘therefore fight’ is merely a restatement, not an injunction.
Śaṅkara's commentary on this unit
1antaḥ vināśaḥ vidyate yeṣāṃ te antavantaḥ |
2yathā mṛgatṛṣṇikādau sad-buddhiḥ anuvṛttā pramāṇanirūpaṇānte vicchidyate, sa tasya antaḥ |
3tathā ime dehāḥ svapnamāyādehādivaca antavantaḥ nityasya śarīriṇaḥ śarīravato 'nāśino 'prameyarya ātmano 'ntavanta iti uktāḥ vivekibhirity arthaḥ |
4nityasya anāśinaḥ iti na punaruktam |
5nityatvasya dvividhatvāt lokā, nāśasya ca |
6yathā deho bhasmībhūto 'darśanaṃ gato naṣṭa ucyate |
7vidyamāno 'pi yathā anyathā pariṇato vyādhyādi-yukto jāto naṣṭa ucyate |
8tatra nityasya ṭh anāśinaḥ iti dvividhenāpi nāśena asaṃbandho 'syety arthaḥ |
9anyathā pṛthivyādivad api nityatvaṃ syāt ātmanaḥ |
10tat mā bhūditi nityasya anāśinaḥ ityāha |
11aprameyamya na prameyasya pratyakṣādi-pramāṇaiḥ aparicchādyasyety arthaḥ ||
12nanu āgamena ātmā paricchidyate, pratyakṣādinā ca pūrvam |
13na |
14ātmanaḥ svataḥsiddhatvāt |
15sirā hi ātmani pramātari pramitsoḥ pramāṇānveṣaṇā bhavati |
16na hi pūrvam itthamaham iti ātmānamapramāya pa cāt prameyaparicchādāya pravartate |
17na hi ātmā nāma kasyacit aprasiddho bhavati |
18śāstraṃ tu antyaṃ pramāṇam atad-dharmādhyāropaṇa-mātra-nivartakatvena pramāṇatvam ātmanaḥ pratipadyate, na hy ajñātārthajñāpakatvena |
19tathā ca śrutiḥ --- yat sākṣād aparokṣād brahma ya ātmā sarvāntaraḥ [bau 3.4.1] iti |
20yasmād evaṃ nityo 'vikriyaś cātmā tasmād yudhyasva, yuddhād uparamaṃ mā kārṣīḥ ity arthaḥ |
21na hy atra yuddha-kartavyatā vidhīyate, yuddhe pravṛtta eva hi asau śoka-moha-pratibaddhaḥ tūṣṇīm āste |
22ataḥ tasya pratibandhāpanayana-mātraṃ bhagavatā kriyate |
23tasmād yudhyasva iti anuvāda-mātram, na vidhiḥ ||bhgs_2.18||
24śoka-mohādi-saṃsāra-kāraṇa-nivṛtty-arthaṃ gītā-śāstram, na pravartakam ity etasyārthasya sākṣi-bhūte ṛcau ānināya bhagavān |
25yat tu manyase yuddhā bhīṣmādayo mayā hanyante aham eva teṣāṃ hantā iti, eṣā buddhir mṛṣaiva te |
26katham ?