The Purusha, know O Arjuna is indestructible. He is unborn and eternal. How can one kill that Purusha and how is death possible for him?

Know O Arjuna, the Purusha has no modification of destruction. Nityam or eternal means it does not go through any modifications such as disease. The one who knows this – that is the connection. By the earlier mantras as have been described, Ajam, means free of birth and Avyayam means free of degradation. It can never get less.

Such a person who has realized this, how will he kill or how will be make another person to kill? Not at any point of time or anywhere he induces to kill. These two words, Kathanchit and Kaschit give the meaning of no only as the usage of these words as questions do not arise here. The statement of fact refers to non-modification of form, the idea of Bhagavan expressed through the text is to establish denial of all actions for the one who has realised.

The reference to the action of killing and negating it is only to to serve as an example for negation of all actions.

The Purva Paksha asks: If it is said that Bhagavan is negating actions, so a Jnani does not have to do actions? So Bhagavan says, “How will a Jnani kill?”
Reply: However, it has been said earlier that because the Atma is actionless, it is the cause for ‘Non-expression of all actions.” This is the most important reason.
Purva Pakshi: True, yet it cannot be the main cause. If the Jnani is different from the one who knows the actionless self? Just because one knows a pillar is motionless, he does not become free of actions?
Reply: Not so. The Jnani is the actionless Self. Being a knower is not because of the presence of the body and its assembled components. . Therefore, due to Parishesha Nyaya, the Jnani is the partless and actionless Atman. For such a Jnani, action is not possible. So the objection of how such a person will kill is applicable.
Just as , it is understood that the individual who is ignorant of the difference between Atman and the movement of thoughts in the intellect, he knows sound, form, smells, taste and touch drawn by the intellect. Can that ignorance be called the Atman?
In this way alone, by the special understanding of the distinction between the Self and the Not-Self by the knowledge of the intellect, even though it is not the truth. the one who knows the supreme nature of the Self as actionless is called a Vidvan.

It is understood to be the firm conclusion of Bhagavan that owing to the absence of actions in a knower of the Self, the actions prescribed by the Shastras are prescribed for the Agnani or one who has not realised this truth.
Purvapaksha: If then, even knowledge has also been prescribed for the Agnani? For the knower of truth, prescribing the path of knowledge is like grinding an already ground batter – it is meaningless. Therefore to say that karma is only for the ignorant and not for the knower is not suitable.
Reply: It is improper to say so. For that action which has to be done, there is the necessity to distinguish between whether it has to be done, or not needed to be done. For the one who thinks he is the doer and this has to be done, actions such as Agnihotra, has to collect the many means and do this work. There is no need for a Jnani to follow those injunctions. It is so because (Na Jayate – is not born again) etc are statement of describing the nature of knowledge of the Self. After knowing the meaning of this, there is nothing that needs to be followed. This is very clear. That is because, I am not the doer, nor the enjoyer – after having this knowledge of the oneness of the Self and absence of action no other knowledge will happen. In this way, this difference between a Jnani and an Agnani is spelt out.
For the one who has the thought, I am the Karta, for that person, “I have to do this,” thought will happen. Owing to that thought, he becomes an qualified for action. They both do not know – Ubhau Tau Na Vijaneetah – This statement indicates the Agnani. For the Agnani referred by the words, Katham Sa Purushah denies the actions for the Jnani.

However, owning to knowledge of the oneness of the Self, that the Self is not the doer, and he knows that he is not the doer or enjoyer. No other knowledge arises.

The one who again thinks of themselves as the Karta and thinks that this is his duty, such a thought would definitely happen. In tune with this thought, he becomes an Adhikari for Karma. Such an ignorant person who does not know the truth is referred here as Ubhau Tau Na Vijaneetah – Katham Sa Purushah: How will such a Purusha is said concerning a Jnani for whom action is not prescribed.

That is why, Bhagavan Vasudeva divides action among the knowers of truth and those who are not aware of the truth for the sake of the Sankhya Yogin or Jnani and holds on to the idea of two types of beliefs as Jnana Yoga for the Sankhyas and Karma Yoga for the Yogis.

Therefore, for the special knower of the truth who has realised the Self and the Mumukshu who is seeking the truth, they only have authority over giving up all actions and surrendering the fruits thereof.
Knowledge for the Jnani and action for the Yogi:

In this way, Bhagavan Narayana spoke of Jnana Yoga for Sankhyas and Karma Yoga for the Yogis and spoke of two paths separately.

In this way too, Bhagavan Vyasa refers to his son and says, ‘Dwavimau panthanau,’ – there are two types of ways etc. In the same way, also ‘kriyapathaschaiva purastat paschat sanyasascha,’ first comes the path of Karma and then the path of Sanyasa.

In this manner, Bhagavan shows the difference again and again. The one who does not know the truth, those who are specially ignorant owing to the identity with the body and considering them to be the doer, the one who knows the truth and understands that I am not the doer. Therefore it is said, give up all the actions through the mind and be etc.

Here, some who consider themselves Panditas say that I am the Self which is free of the six modifications beginning from birth etc., free of modification, not the actor, one has not got this knowledge In this case, for whose sake is Sarva Karma Sannyasa being taught?

It is not so because not born etc. is mentioned. Sastra’s teaching such as this will be meaningless.
In this manner, if it is asked that owing to the power of teaching the Sastras the knowledge that Dharma is present, such a knowledge of the doer and his connection after death then it. It has to be asked how in the same way through the Sastras the Atman which is free of actions, free of the sense of doership, how does it not arise. If it is owing to being subject to the knowledge of the senses?

No. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says, “It has to be seen by the mind alone.” The realisation of the Self has to be done by that mind which is endowed with the qualities of quietude and control of the senses, through the teachings of the Shastras and the Guru who expounds the Shastras.

In the same way, to arrive at the Self mere inference and the scriptural texts will not give rise to knowledge. It will be a mere striving.

It should be understood that when knowledge rises, ignorance is destroyed.

Where ignorance is seen in the statement, “I am the killer or I am killed.” By stating that both do not know, it is shown that the doership of the action of killing and the object killed or the causing the action of killing is caused by ignorance.
Also in all actions too equally, the doership etc is caused by ignorance as the Self is actionless. The doer undergoes modifications and takes upon his own actions and engages another to do it.
Therefore, in this way, without any exception, Bhagavan by negating the qualification for action by the knower of the Self, removes doership in all actions and being the cause to engage others into action by the verse, ‘Vedavinashinam….katham sa purushah,” etc.
Then where does the knower of the Self have authority over said even before in, ‘Jnanayogena Sankhyanam,’ In that way, giving up of all actions has been told by ‘ Giving up all actions with the mind,’ etc.

Questions and answers:

Purvapakshi: However, by the word Manasa (with the mind), if it is said that Sanyasa is not by relinquishing actions of the speech or the body?
Reply: No, by the general mention of Sarvakarmani – all actions.
Purvapakshi: If it is said that all actions refer to all actions of the mind alone?
Reply: No. The actions of speech and body are indeed having the mind as their governing basis. Without the transactions of the mind, the actions of speech and body do not occur.
Purvapakshi: If it is said, give up other actions totally other than the actions of the mind pertaining to the actions of speech and body for executing the actions prescribed by the Shastras?
Reply: No. Owing to the special mention that, “they indeed do not do, nor do they cause others to do.”
Purvapakshi: If it is understood that the renunciation of all actions mentioned by Bhagavan is for the one who has given up the body and not for the one who is living?
Reply: No. It is not fitting because it is mentioned that the being living within the body of nne gates.
Not indeed is it possible that the one who gives up all actions and dies, there is no seat in that body for that person to say that they do not do any action or cause others to do too.
Purvapakshi: If the meaning is give up in the body and not being in the body?
Reply: No, everywhere since the actionlessness of the Self is understood. Even the action of sitting is dependent on the supporting base. Since renunciation is not dependent on any support. Hence the meaning of nyasa – renunciation, with the prefix Sam – completely means to give up not keep.
Therefore in the commentary on knowledge of the Self, we will show here and there how in the Gita Shastra, the one who has knowledge of the Self has authority only in renunciation and not in actions.
With an example we will say. Thee, how does the indestructibility of the Self look like. It is said:

– Brahmacharini Sharanya Chaitanya