य एनं वेत्ति हन्तारं यश्चैनं मन्यते हतम् | उभौ तौ न विजानीतो नायं हन्ति न हन्यते || 19||
ya enaṁ vetti hantāraṁ yaśh chainaṁ manyate hatam
ubhau tau na vijānīto nāyaṁ hanti na hanyate
Meaning: Those who think of the Ātman to be the slayer and he who take it to be the slain, neither of these knows, it does not slay nor is it slain.
~Chapter 2, Verse 19
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचि नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूय: | अजो नित्य: शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे || 20||
na jāyate mriyate vā kadāchin nāyaṁ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ ajo nityaḥ śhāśhvato ’yaṁ purāṇo na hanyate hanyamāne śharīre
Meaning: The real is never born, not does it die. It is not that which you think of or assume. Not having been, it again comes to being. It is unborn, eternal, changeless, ever itself. The body might be killed, that has no impact on the Truth.
~Chapter 2, Verse 20
वेदाविनाशिनं नित्यं य एनमजमव्ययम् | कथं स पुरुष: पार्थ कं घातयति हन्ति कम् || 21||
vedāvināśhinaṁ nityaṁ ya enam ajam avyayam kathaṁ sa puruṣhaḥ pārtha kaṁ ghātayati hanti kam
Meaning: He who knows the Self, the Truth to be indestructible, changeless, birthless immutable, how is he Arjuna, to kill someone or cause a killing?
~Chapter 2, Verse 21
Acharya Prashant: We are taking up verses 19 to 21 of the second chapter of Śrīmad Bhagavad Gītā .
The underlying principle first. This session is needed neither by Prakṛti nor by Ātman. Neither of them is in need of any advice, teaching, or preaching. Ātman is pure, non-dual consciousness, free of arrival and departure. And being free of everything in Prakṛti, it is free of all sorrow. Therefore, the pure Self, Ātman, needs no healing.
Prakṛti is a self-sufficient system with no experiencer at all. Therefore, there is nobody there to experience any kind of sorrow. Hence, Prakṛti too does not need any teacher, or healing, or guru, any sermon.
Who is to be addressed then? Who is to be healed? It is the fantastic entity called the ‘Ego’. The Ego thinks of itself as something real, therefore it calls itself the truth. Says, “I am the self, I am real.” The thing is, it is just real unto itself. Yes, the Ego is real. To whom? To itself.
It is the Ego that experiences all sorrow because it’s self-proclaimed reality is contingent on the vicissitudes of Prakṛti . Ātman is real in a non-dual way, hence it does not lean upon anything to ensure its completeness. It is complete within itself, without needing any predicates from Prakṛti. On the other hand, the completeness of the Ego is always dependent on objects from Prakṛti.
And Prakṛti as experienced by the Ego is a continuous system of rise and fall, and change of form. The Ego does not associate itself with Prakṛti as a whole, it cannot. Because it is little, therefore dualistic, it needs an other to have its own existence. If the Ego is associated with or predicated on the entirety of Prakṛti, then there is no other. If there is no other, the Ego cannot exist. Every small thing necessarily needs an other. So, the Ego attaches itself to some little fragments it perceives in Prakṛti.
And as we said, everything in Prakṛti is continuously experiencing a change in form, change in form. Not construction or destruction, just change in form. But if you are attached to water, and the water turns to vapour or ice; for you it is not change of form, it is death. For the element itself, it is merely change of form, nothing more than that has happened. But if you were attached to water specifically, for you it means death. The water is no more there, so you are no more there, you are gone. From this arises the mighty scare of mankind called death.
The Ego, as we said, is a fantastic element that arises from Prakṛti and becomes the sole experiencer of Prakṛti, the sole perceiver of Prakṛti. In that sense, you could very logically say that sir, it does not arise from Prakṛti, it arises along with Prakṛti.
Because if the Ego is the sole experiencer of Prakṛti, then Prakṛti cannot exist without Ego. If the Ego alone ratifies the existence of Prakṛti, then Ego does not really arise from Prakṛti, it arises along with Prakṛti. And if you say that, my answer will be: yes, the Ego arises along with Prakṛti and this co-origination is to be addressed by the name of Prakṛti itself.
For Prakṛti is not just the insentient objects, but also the little consciousness that we call as Ego. Both these together are called as Prakṛti. And if you want to differentiate between them, Shri Krishna, very beautifully calls one as Apara Prakṛti and other as Para Prakṛti. The world of inanimate objects as seen by the Ego is called Apara Prakṛti, and the Ego itself, the seer of all these inanimate objects the Jaḍa Jagat is called Para Prakṛti; and together these two constitute Prakṛti.
So yes, you are right if you say that the Ego does not arise from Prakṛti it arises along with Prakṛti. You are right. You are right if you are taking Prakṛti as Apara Prakṛti, but when you consider the totality of the term, then it is right to say that the Ego arises from Prakṛti. Are you getting it?
What is the Ego? Does it really exist? It exists only to itself, it exists as long as it is looking at the world in an enamoured way. So, the answer isn’t absolute, the answer is contingent on who you are. And it’s a beautiful question to ask, “Does the Ego exist or not?” It does exist, if you are inebriated, besotted, then it does exist. Pay attention and it does not. So, it depends on your state. Does the Ego exist? It depends on the state of the Ego itself. If the Ego is attentive, it does not exist; if the Ego is inattentive, it exists. To whom does it exist? Only to itself. Now you understand why the sole method of Vedanta is Atmagyan.
If all that the Ego wants is liberation from itself, which means coming to see its own non-existence, then the only way to see its non-existence is by paying attention to itself. The more the Ego pays attention to itself, it sees that it does not exist. The more the Ego remains attached to this and that, all the sensory inputs, the Ego feels that is real and this is real. That is real and this is real.
What is the definition of reality in Vedanta? In general, we call something real if we can perceive it, verify it through senses. No, that is not the definition of reality in Vedanta. That which we call as reality in every day parlance is just experience or perception. In Vedanta, the real is that which cannot be tested by anything. Because if something can be tested by something, it means that thing is dependent on the tester. The real therefore is not available to verification. The real is that whose existence is not at all contingent on something else.
You see, how do you test something’s existence? By varying the condition. You walk into a room, the room is dark. How do you test whether or not there is somebody in the room? You change the conditions of the room, you change the darkness to illumination and immediately, you can verify. Are you getting it?
In Vedanta, the real is that which is not at all dependent on any conditions. Why is such a definition being given? The answer is very practical, the answer is hidden in the very genesis of Vedanta. Never forget and use that as your guiding rule of thumb if you ever find a conflict with respect to the meaning or interpretation of some verse, some sutra. The entire purpose is to rid man of its suffering, that’s why Vedanta exists.
And now you must know why reality must not be dependent on anything. Because if something is dependent on something else, that is slavery and that is suffering. The very purpose of Vedanta is amelioration of suffering, and suffering comes from dependency. Therefore, Vedanta went so far as to say that if you are dependent on something, then you are not real. Hence, the very definition of reality is that which is free.
What is real? That which is free. So, as long as you are not liberated, are you real? And if you are not, do you exist? Because the unreal cannot exist. The Vedanta says, “Only on liberation do you come into existence. Before that, it is just a play of chemicals and some processes, there is no ‘You’ really.” Because the highest respect is reserved for and accorded to the word ‘I’ or ‘You’. That is the highest Vedantic Truth, ‘I’. Ātman itself means ‘I’.
Vedanta says, “You do not deserve to use ‘I’ if you are not liberated. Don’t say ‘me’, you are not. You become qualified to say that you exist only when you are liberated of your Prakṛtik bondages, otherwise you are just bragging. ‘I am,’ ‘I am doing that,’ ‘I belong there,’ ‘I am going to do that,’ ‘I have such dreams,’ ‘I have such relationships.’ Are you getting it?
Please see from where Vedanta is coming. Vedanta springs from compassion towards mankind itself. And those who could see, realized that all suffering, all our tears—it’s a very humane enterprise, please understand. It’s not just a philosophy for the sake of it, something very important is at stake. Vedanta is not philosophy for the sake of philosophy. Vedanta is philosophy for the sake of mankind.
Your liberation is the purpose of Vedanta, not some abstract principle like discovery of Truth. If you simply say philosophy, that simply means you know, I like the Truth, I want to venture into it, I love exploring the Truth, that is philosophy; Vedanta is beyond that.
The Truth is unknowable, so I am not going to get into something as abstract as that. I want to know how do I wipe off my tears, that’s the purpose of Vedanta. And with that purpose begins a philosophical pursuit. So there is philosophy, there is hardcore philosophy, there is top notch philosophy, but that philosophy is not for its own sake. It’s a beautiful thing, please understand, there is a life lesson here.
Something is being done just to help the other. The purpose is not to create the highest form of literature that mankind has known; no, that was not the purpose. But something extremely sublime and beautiful sprang from the kind hearted approach to help the other. My purpose was to help you, and in the process of helping you something extremely beautiful and precious just came up. I didn’t intend to, it spontaneously came up; that’s what the Upanishads are, that’s what the entire Vedantic corpus is—it just came.
The Rishis were not fond of proclaiming to the world that they are great authors or philosophers. So many times, we do not even know where the particular verse is coming from? Even Bhagavad Gita, we are told Ved Vyas. Now Ved Vyas appears more like a qualification, more like a title than the specific name of a particular person. Are you getting it?
They were not interested in blowing their own trumpet, they wanted to help. The life lesson is, if you do things without the desire for yourself at the centre, then what comes from that, what gets created by you is of an order that you could have never actively imagined. Are you getting it?
So, consider the situation. There is the Ego. For us it does exist, right? So, let’s get rid of the theoretical framework in which the Ego does not exist. The Ego does exist. Where does it exist? Here, I am the Ego. Let’s begin from there, because that is our experienced day to day reality, the Ego does exist, right?
The Ego exists and for the Ego—is this perceived world. If I am there, then this world is there, there is no dissociation between the two. Have you ever lived for a second in a world-less space? Has that happened? You are there and the universe is not there, has that happened? So, you and the world are necessary companions, true? And the Ego is heavily dependent on the world, not only for it sustenance, but for its very identity.
Nobody can answer the question who are you without picking up something from the world, try that? Who are you? Answer this question without using anything from the world. Try, can you? Can you? Try, and then think of the kind of helplessness it is. Who are you? Finished, finished. Even if you say, 'I am,' you still have used a language from the world. Though that’s probably the maximum, you can liberate yourself from the world, even while giving an answer. Somebody asks you, “Who are you?” And you say, “I am,” that’s a maximum extent of your liberation possible. But even that liberation is so conditional, so limited.
So, that’s the human condition—you live and you live dependently. And that which you are dependent on is a secular, self-contained system of its own with no concern at all for your well-being. The cloud does not ask you before raining. Death does not ask you before striking. If you take in some toxin, it does not ask you before hurting you. You thought it was some good sweetmeat, went in and started doing all kinds of nasty things. It took your permission?
So, I live dependent on you and you are extremely autonomous. You give two hoots to my desires and my concerns. Does it not happen? You go to a river and you put your toe in it. For your sake, does the water adjust the temperature? The temperature will remain what it is. If you like it, good, otherwise.... Is that not so?
You are going to miss the flight. Does the earth start spinning slowly on its axis? Does that happen? And you are dependent on the little thing on your wrist, and the little thing on the wrist is not at all concerned about your flight. You are telling, “Can you please stop yourself for two minutes, just two minutes.” Two minutes is all you are missing your flight by, such a little thing, think. And even that is autonomous, you cannot do anything.
That’s the human condition. You live in an extremely dependent way on the world and the world is independent of you. One way traffic—you are dependent on the world and the world is independent of you. You drop dead right now, do the stars start wailing? It does not matter even to the rat or the crow, or does it? You just dropped dead and two lizards are mating right over your head, that’s the worth of your life.
Even as we are busy feeling great in this hall enlightening ourselves, a few thousand people have already died in the last few minutes. They always do sir, that’s the natural rate of death. Nothing shocking about it. That’s the way the universe is. At this moment, there is some black hole consuming massive stars. Think. What you call as universe, entire universes are being finished this very second.
Our universe is not the absolute universe, right? This, that, we look around we call as the universe. In that proportion, a black hole devours so many universes and you are busy sitting, somebody’s scratching his back. And in that interim, a black hole finished off some two hundred suns. Two hundred suns are gone and what were you doing? Picking your nose or elbowing your neighbour. Two hundred suns finished off, without a trace. Not reduced to ashes, reduced to nothingness. The universe doesn’t care or does it?
Even as we are having this extremely sacred discussion here, people are busy killing each other. Think of the other side of the globe, somebody is pestering somebody for a bribe, here we are with the sacred Bhagavad Gita. This very moment, so many things are happening.
Some judge in some court has been bought off, he is delivering a totally unjust verdict. Is that not happening, right now? That is happening. Even as we uttered these words, somebody has been shot, somebody just succumbed to his chronic illness. Is that not happening? This moment somebody succumbed to his chronic illness, somewhere in Argentina, let’s say. And we are talking of only the human species, if you include all species, we can’t even imagine what all is going on. Even as we spoke, so many species went extinct forever, they will never come back. Somebody is snoring, somebody is farting, somebody is having sex this very moment, think. Don’t think. (everybody laughs.)
Who are you? Nobody! With you or without you, the world gives two hoots. This moment, if your chair suddenly falls vacant, even the CCTV will not bother to note. You will have to zoom in and see: Where is the fellow? Under the chair, or where? And we are so pathetically and pathologically dependent on the world. What kind of relationship is this? This is what deeply hurts the sages.
They said, “This relationship is not acceptable. You do not care for me, where as I have to live and die by you. This won’t do, this won’t do. It’s like one sided, unrequited love. Even for my very breath, I am dependent on you and you don’t even notice even if I am gone forever.” Is that not so?
Now, there are two ways to approach this situation. One way is, “You know it is not as if nobody cares for me. I have two and half people in my life who do care for me.” They care for you because you know, you have written a will for them. A lot of their comforts, and security, and emotional needs depend on you, or physical needs depend on you, therefore they care for you. They care for you only in this moment. Ten years hence, their needs will no more be dependent on you, then even they will not care for you.
So, one way is to say that it is not as if I am absolutely inconsequential, I do matter. You see, if I am gone, forty people will come to the ceremony. Those forty are coming only because you know what? You also know that if the conditions change, none of those forty will turn up. There is something about the conditions that is making those forty turn up.
So, one way is the way of self-delusion, the other way is the way of self-liberation. In self-delusion, you remain dependent and want to justify your dependence, you want to beautify your dependence. You say, “No, this is not dependence, this is love. I am not a prisoner, I have agreed and cooperating to be in this great mansion that you call as the prison. It is not a prison, it is a mansion, and I am here by my own will. I am not held captive here, I am just cooperating, I am just fulfilling my due responsibilities.” One way is this. Then you can say, “You know, I am not in bondage at all, so why do I need liberation?” This is not the way of the sage.
The Rishi by his very definition is the biggest rebel possible. Rishi is rebellion. Think of that long flowing white beard as his flag. He carries that everywhere he goes, that’s a mark of the rebels. I am not saying everybody who has a beard is a rebel, please. Are you getting it?
The fellow says, “Irrespective of how I carve out my relationships with this thing, I will remain a slave, a serf, a vassal. Maybe I will have some autonomy, but that will be a conferred autonomy, not an earned autonomy, not an autonomous autonomy; it will be a dependent, contingent autonomy.
Somebody, like you know, you have vassals, vassals you understand? So there is the king and then there is some kind of a feudal lord and the king says, “Fine, you can control that particular area. Forty villages will be under your command.” So, that fellow says, “Right. I am the lord of those forty villages.” But you are not the absolute lord of those forty villages, the king is over you like you had kingdoms in India even in the British era. Were they really sovereign? The fellow used to call himself the king of such and such state, but he was not really the king, the kingship was a dependent one.
The sage is not happy with all that, not at all satisfied. The sage says, “I need to have a relationship in which if you cannot depend on me, then I too will not depend on you." I cannot change your rules obviously. This freedom from dependence, this freedom from total helplessness is liberation. Liberation for the Ego, because I am the Ego.
And I kept remaining dependent, I do not want to be dependent. I go into myself and ask, “Why do I remain dependent?” The answer is, because you want something from there. “Why do I want something from there?” The answer is, because I think I lack in that thing. “Why do you think you lack in that thing?” No answer, but it just feels that way.
“Can we explore that? Can we really verify whether you really lack in something?” Yes, seems like a good idea. How do we do that?
“Can we see where the feeling comes from?” What do we call this process as? The answer is self-observation.
Since the bondage stems from me, therefore I have to go into myself to find the root of the bondage and uproot it. Otherwise it is very indignified. Do you see the indignity? Think of being in relationship with someone and you do not matter at all to that person. Whereas, for money you depend on that person, for food you depend on that person, for identity you depend on that person, for house you depend on that person, for clothes you depend on that person, for emotional support you depend on that person, for physical support you depend on that person. You would enjoy this condition? Would you?
That’s the condition of mankind by birth, that’s how we are condemned to be born—extremely vulnerable and totally dependent. And in this dependency is indignity. Therefore Vedanta is a rebellion to reclaim dignity. “Give it back to me!” What? “My dignity.” Are you clear?
Now, it will probably be easier to understand why Shri Krishna speaks this way.
[Verse 19] Those who think of the Ātman to be the slayer and he who takes it to be the slain, neither of these knows, it does not slay nor is it slain.
It is an instruction into the very nature of the pure Self. Rising, falling, change of forms, arrival, departure—all these belong to the field of Prakṛti. Stay away, all that is happening there, all that is not happening here, all that is happening, all that must not happen to you. All that is happening Parth, it is not necessarily happening to you.
“To whom is it happening?” “It is happening to the perceiver, I am not the perceiver.” “Who is the perceiver?” “The eyes are the perceivers, the body is the perceiver, to some extent even the mind, intellect and memory are the perceivers; and yet I can stand apart from all these.”
“So, all this is happening, is that happening?” “Yes it is happening.” “All happening is to someone. To whom is the happening?” “To the eye the happening is there, to the skin the happening is there, to the memory the happening is there.”
Freedom lies in being able to see the other ‘I’ and call your normal ‘I’ as the other one. The Ego is there and things are happening to the Ego. Obviously, the Ego is experiencing pain. Is the pain there? Yes, the pain is there, to the Ego, not to me. There are two I’s now, there are two I’s.
It is very strange. In non-duality, there are two I’s, and in duality, there is only one I. In duality there is only one I, called the Ego. Does the Ego experience any thing called the other I, the true Self? No. So in duality, there is only one I, called the Ego. In non-duality the other one just opens up and this other one becomes the first one, the real one, let us simply say the only one; because the only one, therefore non-duality.
Only one, why? Because that’s the one who I am, that’s who I am. Then what is that one that is experiencing the pain? That is a product of the body, that is not who I am; therefore non-duality. Then when there is a single I, why do you call that duality? Because there are two for that single I—me and the world; therefore it is dualistic.
In that single 'I' framework, there is the 'I' called the Ego, and there is the world; so there are two, hence it is dualistic. But when there are those two I’s, then what is real ? Only the I, the other two are playing with each other. The world and the Ego, they are playing with each other, and both of them are just playthings to each other. Let them do whatever they want to do. My-ness is contained only in the pure Self, therefore non-duality.
Why is Shri Krishna telling Arjuna that the pure Self can neither be killed nor does it kill? Those who think of killing with respect to the pure Self are deluded. Why he is saying all this? So that the fear that the highest lies in the body itself can be removed. Please consider Arjuna’s situation. He supposed to fight and fighting would involve killing the body. Arjuna is taking this killing as so important, so significant that he is trembling from this perceived significance.
When something absolutely significant is happening to you, don’t you tremble? That significance could be good, bad, desirable, undesirable, whatever; but something totally significant is happening, absolutely, something of the highest significance is happening, have you seen your condition? You tremble, you feel small because something so big is happening, and in front of that bigness, you are little.
Shri Krishna is trying to tell Arjuna that the reality is in any way very distinct from this drama that is being played out here, why are you attaching so much significance to it? You will shoot, they will fire, all that is okay. None of that has any bearing on reality. Somebody will get killed, somebody will kill, none of that has any bearing on the reality. Hence he is saying, "Ātman can neither be killed nor does it kill.” Which means that all this killing that will happen here has nothing to do with the absolute Truth. Hence, you need not give an absolute weightage to these happenings. It is because you are giving an absolute importance to this happening, that you are nervous and trembling. Do you understand?
There is a lot of psychology here. You think this is very important? No, it is not. The thing of real importance is something else. So, how should we conduct ourselves here then? If the real thing is there, how should we conduct ourselves here? The answer is wonderful. The answer is you should conduct yourself here in a way that helps you and others realize that this is not the real thing, because the real thing is there. But you suffer because you think that the real thing is here.
What should be then the purpose of all your actions here? To help yourself and others see that this is not real. And if there is somebody who is hell bent on proving, establishing that this is the absolute; this, the dualistic drama is the absolute thing, then dharma requires that such a person be stopped in his tracks.
What is the purpose of life? To help yourself and the others see that all this is not absolute. Which means you need not have greed, and lust, and avarice, and temptation, right? Because if all this is not very real, what are you drooling for? Do you get this? Therefore, Arjuna, this war needs to be fought, because that fellow on the other side, if he becomes the king, he will establish to the entire country that all this is so significant, that you can resort to all kinds of dubious means just to gain a piece of land.
Duryodhana’s ascension to the throne would establish to the entire population that the throne, and the land, and the power, and the pelf are so valuable, so absolutely valuable that anything can be done for their sake. And if that is established, that would mean sorrow for the entire nation. Because what is sorrow? Considering Prakṛti as real is sorrow, and that is what Duryodhana is out to establish to the entire land that Prakṛti is real. Prakṛti is so real that I can kill my own brothers for it through conspiracy.
Therefore fight, fight. If you are killed, that is okay. Who says you are alive anyway? If they are killed, that too is okay. The real thing is somewhere else. Arjuna will be very justified in asking, “If the real thing is somewhere else, why do we fight at all? Let me just go and sleep somewhere. Anyway the absolute is neither in fighting nor in sleeping, so let me simply go and sleep somewhere.”
Yes, you can do that, but that would mean that sorrow would continue. And the purpose of the sage, as we have repeatedly seen today is the elimination of sorrow. Duryodhana on the throne would mean sorrow to the kingdom. Fight not for the throne Parth, fight for dharma. The throne is incidental, you can have the throne and then relinquish it if you want to. Getting it?
Verse nineteen is to take the seriousness away from Arjuna’s shivering. Arjuna is so damn serious about what is going on. After all the society is absolute, after all the blood relations are absolute, how do I shoot at my own kith and kin? And that very respectable and affectionate Pitamaha, because those things are absolute. That’s what the family and the society teach us, no?
This is the highest, absolute means beyond comparison, unconditionally highest, that’s what we call it. So, that’s how the societies has told us that these things are the highest—the memories, the attachments, the sanskars, that’s what been touted as the highest, and Arjuna therefore is very serious.
“Am I being told to violate the highest? Will I kill my own brothers?” Krishna is taking the seriousness out of Arjuna’s condition and Arjuna’s arguments. What lies at the core of Arjuna’s arguments? All this is very important. Krishna is saying, “The important one is there, this is just drama.” Do you understand how its operating? “The important one is there, this is drama. Now tell me what are you shaking and shivering for?”
Then Arjuna should say, “If this is just drama, then let me run away. Because it’s very much possible that in drama particular character just runs away.” And then Krishna would say, “If you run away, then this would be a very melancholy drama, then this would be a drama full of lot of suffering. Therefore fight, knowing fully well that this is a drama fight.” Getting it?
The same flow continues in the next two verses.
[Verse 20] The real is never born, not does it die. It is not that which you think of or assume. Not having been, it again comes to being. It is unborn, eternal, changeless, ever itself. The body might be killed, that has no impact on the Truth. Getting it?
Then [Verse 21] He who knows the Self, the Truth to be indestructible, changeless, birthless immutable, how is he Arjuna, to kill someone or cause a killing?
Because the word killing can apply only to something that is alive. The alive one is there, all this is just a drama, so there is no killing happening here. It’s almost like a Ramleela manch, lots of bodies will fall, but nobody will get killed. Arjuna, play your part, no killing can happen.
For something to be killed, it should first of all have ever been alive. Now life is possible only to That, and if someone is so liberated as to have become That, then he is anyway liberated of the body. So, even if you kill his body, he is not killed. Those who are not liberated, they are anyway not alive. Please understand the argument. Those who are not liberated they are anyway not alive. They are a moving bunch of processes and chemicals like a machine, so the word killing does not apply to them.
I have been sipping tea, have I killed it? You take a big lump of salt and you bludgeon it with a hammer, have you killed it? Why not? It’s reduced to particles now. Have you killed it? No. Killing does not apply to those with chemical consciousness, so they cannot be killed. And if someone who is not chemical anymore, who is liberated now, then that fellow anyway does not identify with the body. Even if the body falls, he is not killed. So either way, killing cannot happen. So, what are you then so shaky and nervous for? Just deliver your dialogues, perform your role and get out. Get out as soon as possible, that’s what we are all here for. No?
Do you understand his argument? Shri Krishna’s argument? It’s a beautiful argument. Anything that is happening in the field of Prakṛti is unreal, correct? But to the Ego it is very, very real. So, you must realize first of all that anything that you do in the field of Prakṛti has no absolute significance at all.
The entire world may disappear tomorrow, it makes no difference to the Ātmangyani. Some big rock comes and strikes the earth, the entire planet is gone, makes no difference to the self-knower. It’s very strange. This one appears like a heartless person? No, he is extremely compassionate. But the thing is, it does not matter to him because he knows all this is just..
Entire universes keep rising and falling, how does it matter? The entire play of Prakṛti is just to me. If I say, “Oh, oh, oh, it’s an eternal and vast infinite universe.” All that is just my saying. Otherwise it is just my field of perception, my field of perception, only as big as I am.
There is no point calling it the colossal infinite universe. It does not matter to the liberated one. Are you getting it? But the liberated one also knows that once he was not liberated. He also knows that all those who are not liberated today have the potential to move to his own place. Therefore knowing fully well that the drama does not matter, he still participates in it. He participates in it in a way that pulls people out of the drama and that’s how Shri Krishna is asking Arjuna to fight the war.
Yes, it is a drama Arjuna, first of all, you should understand that. Secondly, don’t allow those forces to win who will continue this drama of sorrow. Because the liberated one, he does not feel any sorrow, those who are in the drama, they are feeling all the sorrow. Therefore the drama must be conducted very meticulously.
You cannot just dismiss the world and sing, “Oh, all this is Maya." You might be liberated or relatively liberated so you are saying, “All this is Maya." But think of the one who is caught in Maya. He is the experiencer of sorrow and the entire Vedantic stream begins as a rebellion against sorrow. Therefore you cannot say, “Oh, even sorrow is unreal.” No, no, no! Sorry, that argument will not be bought. Sorrow is unreal to the one who is free of sorrow. The one who is experiencing sorrow, he has to be helped. That is at the core of all that Shri Krishna preaches to Arjuna.
Two grown-ups are rehearsing a particular scene in a play in front of a kid. And that particular scene involves aggressive, violent exchange of abuses and also blows, physical blows. They are rehearsing, let’s say, at some time in the night, and the kid is still awake, and the kid is watching them. And the kid is watching them, and these two are rehearsing. And to the kid the drama is real, and the kid gets terrified. The kid gets terrified. So, what will the grown-ups do? They will say, “Right, let’s rehearse some other scene right now, some other more amicable, more pleasant scene, more agreeable scene.” And so they switch the scene.
Now, in this scene that is being watched by the kid, these two grown-ups are hugging each other and exchanging pleasantries instead of blows, talking nice things and saying, “Yes, would you want to have some tea?” Was it not a drama then? Is it not a drama now? But the drama has to be conducted very meticulously keeping in mind the interests of the kid. It is still a drama. It was even then a drama. Not that the drama is being taken as real.
Shri Krishna is not telling Arjuna, take the drama as real. He is not saying, “Oh, the war is extremely important.” No, he is not saying the war is extremely important. Look at the genius of Shri Krishna. He’s saying, “The war is not at all important, now fight.”
This is so different from motivation. In motivation, we tell someone, “This is more important than your life. Plunge into it. Give everything to it. Die for it, because it is so very important.” On the contrary, Shri Krishna is saying, “Arjuna, fight the war because it is not important. Know that it is not important at all and then fight as if your life depends on it. Know that this is just a drama, this is just a drama. The real thing is Ātman. Na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre. The bodies will fall, the Ātman remains untouched. Know that this is a drama and then perform your role to perfection.
“Why should I perform my role to perfection?” The answer is compassion, for the sake of the little kid who still does not know that this is a drama. For the kid, the drama is real. So, what is the aim of the drama? To bring the kid to a point where he starts seeing that all this is a drama. That is exactly the role even Shri Krishna is playing in the drama. He is trying to bring kid Arjuna to a point where Arjuna sees that all this is a drama, yet it has to be played.