Chapter 2 · Verse 30·Spoken by Krishna
देही नित्यमवध्योऽयं देहे सर्वस्य भारत। तस्मात्सर्वाणि भूतानि न त्वं शोचितुमर्हसि
dehī nityam avadhyo ’yaṁ dehe sarvasya bhārata tasmāt sarvāṇi bhūtāni na tvaṁ śhochitum arhasi
The embodied self in everyone's body can never be killed. So you should not grieve for any being.
Word by Word
Saved for this reading session
Three movements · tap a label to switch
Sanskrit recitation by Swami Brahmānanda
Audio from the Gītā Supersite, IIT Kanpur
Synthesis · a glossed leaf
machine-assisted draft, pending review
Convergence
his verse is the seal that closes the long argument Krishna has been building since verse 2.11. He has shown that the indweller is eternal and the body fleeting, and now he gathers all of that into one final statement and one final instruction. The commentators repeatedly call it a conclusion: the running theme of un-grievability is being clinched here, and the whole stretch from verse 11 to verse 30 has been driving toward this single point.
Braided from 9 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrī Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Baladeva · Swami Ramsukhdas
The heart of the verse is that the 'dehi', the embodied one or indweller, the self that wears a body, is 'nityam avadhya', eternally unslayable. This is true not just of Arjuna or of one or two persons but of the self seated in the body of every single being. Shankara grounds the unslayability in the self's being partless and eternal: what has no parts and is all-pervading cannot be cut, so it is not slain even when a body is slain. The self pervades all, present even in unmoving things, and remains untouched by any death.
Braided from 13 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Dhanapati Sūri · Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika · Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Baladeva · Swami Sivananda · Sant Jñāneśvar · Lokmanya Tilak · Swami Ramsukhdas
Because the self can never be killed, the conclusion follows directly: you should grieve for no being whatsoever. The commentators stress the sweep of the word 'all'. Krishna is not narrowing his comfort to Bhishma alone; the point reaches from gods down to the smallest creatures and even unmoving things. Ramsukhdas notes that the plural 'sarvani bhutani', all beings, is chosen precisely so that no being is left out as an exception. The grief Arjuna feels for these specific kinsmen is dissolved by a truth that holds for everything that lives.
Braided from 10 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Dhanapati Sūri · Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika · Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama · Śrīla Baladeva · Swami Sivananda · Sant Jñāneśvar · Swami Ramsukhdas
The reasoning cuts both ways and leaves nothing to mourn. The self is not to be grieved for because it is eternal and cannot perish. The body is not to be grieved for because it is by its very nature perishable, so its loss is unavoidable and not stable even for a moment. Madhusudana spells this out fully: neither the self, nor the subtle body, nor the gross body is fit to be grieved over, the self and subtle body because they are unslayable and the gross body because its destruction is certain anyway. Whichever way you look, grief has no real object.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrīla Baladeva · Lokmanya Tilak · Swami Ramsukhdas
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
These commentators ground the self's unslayability in its being partless and all-pervading: having no parts, it cannot be cut, and pervading everything it is present even in unmoving and inert things, so it is never touched when a body falls. Madhusudana adds a careful three-fold analysis. He separates the self, the subtle body, and the gross body. The subtle body is treated as ungrievable because, like the self, it is not destroyed when the gross body dies; the gross body is ungrievable because its loss is simply unavoidable. So the comfort covers all three layers, not the self alone.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Here the stress falls on the many selves all sharing one essential nature. From gods down to unmoving things the bodies differ in form, caste, quality, place, time, and in pleasure and pain, but in their own inner nature the selves are alike and eternal. All the disparity and impermanence that we see belongs strictly to the body-side, never to the self. Vedantadeshika adds that even what looks like variation in the self's pleasure and pain is really rooted in body-conditioned grades of knowledge, and that selves get named by body-words only because body and self exist inseparably. The conclusion is the same universal one: grieve not for any being, and not for Bhishma alone.
Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika
Modern
These voices read the verse mainly as a hinge. It closes the case against grief and immediately turns toward a new question: if death is no real loss, why must Arjuna still fight? Tilak is emphatic that the immortality argument by itself settles only the fear of dying and killing; it does not make killing sinless, since unjustified killing and suicide remain grave wrongs, and the Gita's real subject is the discrimination between right and wrong. Gandhi-Desai likewise says Krishna now reminds Arjuna of a warrior's duty. Ramsukhdas frames the shift precisely: verses 11 to 30 were spoken to remove grief, and from the next verse Krishna begins the topic of a kshatriya's duty to remove a different burden, the fear of sin.
Mahatma Gandhi · Lokmanya Tilak · Swami Ramsukhdas
Modern
Ramsukhdas draws out two points the others do not. First, 'avadhya' has two distinct senses: 'should not be slain' and 'cannot be slain'. A cow is avadhya in the first sense, since slaying it is a sin, but the self is avadhya in the second, stronger sense: its slaying simply cannot occur and no one is able to bring it about. Second, he notes that Krishna deliberately avoids technical philosophical pairs like self-and-not-self or brahman-and-soul, using instead plain words like body and indweller, perishable and imperishable. The reason is that study is one thing and direct experience another; the discrimination between indweller and body is the lived prerequisite for every path, jnana, karma, and bhakti alike, and merely learned philosophy does not remove anyone's grief.
Swami Ramsukhdas
A Seeker Asks
If no one can truly be killed and I should grieve for no one, does this verse make killing weightless and license me to slay?
No, and the commentators are careful to block exactly this misreading. The argument up to here removes only one thing: the fear and sorrow attached to death, on the ground that the self is immortal and the body is mortal anyway. It says nothing about whether a given act of killing is right or wrong.
Lokmanya Tilak · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Tilak states plainly that drawing 'so there is no sin in killing' from the immortality of the self would be a very serious mistake. The words 'dying' and 'killing' have only been analyzed to lift the dread of death; unjustified killing, and suicide too, remain grave wrongs. The real subject the Gita is moving toward is the discrimination between dharma and adharma, right and wrong, which is a separate question from whether the self can die.
Lokmanya Tilak
This is why the verse functions as a turning point rather than a permission. Having closed the case against grief, Krishna immediately opens a new and independent reason for Arjuna to act: the duty proper to a warrior. He must still justify why one person should fight at all, and he does so on the ground of duty, not on the ground that death is unreal.
Śrīla Viśvanātha · Mahatma Gandhi · Swami Ramsukhdas · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha
Contemplation
Ramsukhdas turns this from a doctrine into something you can verify in your own experience right now. Watch your own life: there was childhood, then youth; sickness came and sickness went; states keep changing. But notice that there is a knower of all these states who does not change, otherwise who would be there to notice that the body and its conditions are changing at all? The body alters every moment; the one who is aware of the alteration stays the same. The changing and the unchanging can never be one and the same thing. He warns that this is not the same as collecting information from books, where brahman, soul, and world all become mere objects to study and store. The seeker's aim is to actually experience that the indweller is one and the body another. If that single discrimination is truly known and not merely learned, he says, grief becomes impossible.
Sit with this · Swami Ramsukhdas
Pull up a chair.
You have come to sit with this verse. When you are ready to hear the translators and the commentators in full, tap a name in The seating.