Srimad BhagavadGita

In the earlier ślokas, the eternal nature of the soul was established based on knowledge acquired by inference. Some questions may be raised on these inferences quoted. In this śloka Gītācārya addresses these questions, answers them based on evidence and rationale and concludes this topic of 'Establishing the eternal nature of the soul'. Kṛṣṇa says,"It is said that this soul cannot be known, is inconceivable and unchanging. Therefore, knowing well that the soul is like this, it does not befit you to grieve."  

​

ayam avyaktaḥ (Cannot be known)

A doubt may arise: When the soul can be known by śāstric evidence, how can it be said that the soul cannot be known?

Answer: The actual meaning for 'avyaktaḥ' inline with the śāstras and the context of this chapter is as follows, 'By direct perception and other means of gaining knowledge, it is known that insentient substances like the body are subject to cutting, burning, dissolving, drying, etc. Using the same means of gaining knowledge, it is not possible to know about the soul the way it is known about insentient substances. The soul is different in kind from all gross objects. Therefore it is told here that the soul is unmanifest /cannot be known. If the meaning is taken literally that the soul cannot be known in any way, then the evidence by direct perception and the śāstras, both will have to be termed useless. Soul is known to its experiencer as an embodiment of knowledge, bliss and divine qualities. Even the śāstras describe the soul as eternal, as an embodiment of knowledge and bliss, as knowledgeable, as inseparable from Bhagawān, as qualifying HIM and as being subservient to HIM. It is clearly evident that the body is destructible. However, there is no evidence which tells us that the soul is destructible like the body. Hence there is no evidence or rationale that can counter the inferences shown earlier to prove that the soul is eternal. The meaning for the word 'avyakta' given in Mahābhhārata mokṣa dharma 330.41 too supports the above explanation. It is as follows, 'indriyairgṛhyate yadyat tattadvyaktam itisthitiḥ | avyktamiti vijñeyam lingagrāhyamatīndriyam || (The substances which can be known by external senses, are said to be vyakta. Those substances which cannot be known by external senses but can be known by mental perception, inference, etc, are known as avyakta)  Hence, the meaning told by non-dualists that the soul cannot be known by any possible means is inappropriate.

acintyaḥ ayam (Cannot be conceived) Buddhists and such other sects claim that everything including the soul is temporary in existence. They infer that a substance exists only until it is there and that the existence of everything is temporary just like the flame of an oil lamp. This inference is countered by Kṛṣṇa by saying 'acintyaḥ ayam'. Just because, the means of gaining knowledge like direct perception, etc, by which the temporary nature of insentient objects is determined, cannot serve as means to know the same about this soul. and because this soul is totally different in kind from all gross objects, it cannot be assumed that these characteristics of temporary objects apply to the soul too. The inference made by the Buddhists is not valid because it is not evident by direct perception that absolutely everything existing in this world is temporary in nature and also because the śāstras tell us that the soul is eternal.

Kṛṣṇa concludes this discussion by saying that since the soul is avyakta and acintya, it is avikārya (does not undergo any changes).

avikāryoyamuccyate (it is said that this soul is unchanging) 

The objections raised on the four inferences proving the eternal nature of the soul have already been answered in śloka 2.18. Clarifications about the soul being avyakta (unmanifest) and acintya (unconceivable) are given above. It is undisputed now that the soul is avyakta, acintya and nitya. The learned men declare the soul to be avikārya, since it is avyakta, acintya and nitya. This declaration cannot be refuted in any way. 

In addition to the four inferences stated in śloka 2.18 for the eternal nature of the soul, a fifth inference is stated in this śloka. The inference is: As the soul is avyakta it is avikārya (The soul does not undergo any changes since it is unmanifest). The viśeṣa vyāpti (specific concomitance) for this inference is: The soul does not undergoing changes, since there is no evidence to prove that it undergoes changes (which is because the soul is unmanifest). Iśwara who is known to be unchanging by nature is an illustration in favour of this vyāpti (sapakṣi). As there is evidence that a gross object like a mud pot undergoes changes, it serves as an illustration opposed to this vyāpti (vipakṣi). The sāmānya vyāpti (general concomitance) is that 'when there is no evidence about an object having a specific form, then the object does not have that form, eg: Black colour has no yellow in it'. By these viśeṣa and sāmānya vyāptis, it can be derived that 'As the soul is unmanifest, thus leaving no evidence to prove that it undergoes changes, it is established that the soul does not undergo any changes. The fifth inference to establish the eternality of the soul is thus proved. 

If avikāraḥ had been used by Kṛṣṇa instead of avikāryaḥ, it would have been possible for someone to assume that maybe the soul remains unchanged only for a certain period of time and not at all times. Usage of avikāryaḥ here which has the 'yat' pratyaya denoting 'capability' (pratyaya in Sanskṛt is an extension appended to the end of a given verb or noun) leaves no room for this assumption. Hence avikārya means that it is not the nature of the soul to undergo any change or modification.

tasmāt (Therefore) Since the soul exists without undergoing any changes, therefore...

enam evam viditvā Upon knowing well that the soul by nature does not undergo modifications.

nānuśocitum arhasi (This soul is not what you should grieve about) O Arjuna! Once you are aware of this nature of the soul, it does not befit you to grieve for it anymore.