In plain words
One who knows it as indestructible, eternal, unborn, and undecaying—how can such a person, Partha, cause anyone to be killed or kill anyone?
Word for word
Who knows this [one] as indestructible, eternal, unborn, undecaying, how, O son of Pṛthā, does that person cause whom to be slain, [or] slay whom?
The commentators
Bhagavadgītābhāṣyam
‘य एनं वेत्ति हन्तारम्’(भ. गी. २ । १९) इत्यनेन मन्त्रेण हननक्रियायाः कर्ता कर्म च न भवति इति प्रतिज्ञाय, ‘न जायते’ इत्यनेन अविक्रियत्वं हेतुमुक्त्वा प्रतिज्ञातार्थमुपसंहरति —
वेद विजानाति अविनाशिनम् अन्त्यभावविकाररहितं नित्यं विपरिणामरहितं यो वेद इति सम्बन्धः । एनं पूर्वेण मन्त्रेणोक्तलक्षणम् अजं जन्मरहितम् अव्ययम् अपक्षयरहितं कथं केन प्रकारेण सः विद्वान् पुरुषः अधिकृतः हन्ति हननक्रियां करोति, कथं वा घातयति हन्तारं प्रयोजयति । न कथञ्चित् कञ्चित् हन्ति, न कथञ्चित् कञ्चित् घातयति इति उभयत्र आक्षेप एवार्थः, प्रश्नार्थासम्भवात् । हेत्वर्थस्य च अविक्रियत्वस्य तुल्यत्वात् विदुषः सर्वकर्मप्रतिषेध एव प्रकरणार्थः अभिप्रेतो भगवता । हन्तेस्तु आक्षेपः उदाहरणार्थत्वेन कथितः ॥
विदुषः कं कर्मासम्भवहेतुविशेषं पश्यन् कर्माण्याक्षिपति भगवान् ‘कथं स पुरुषः’ इति । ननु उक्त एवात्मनः अविक्रियत्वं सर्वकर्मासम्भवकारणविशेषः । सत्यमुक्तः । न तु सः कारणविशेषः, अन्यत्वात् विदुषः अविक्रियादात्मनः । न हि अविक्रियं स्थाणुं विदितवतः कर्म न सम्भवति इति चेत् , न ; विदुषः आत्मत्वात् । न देहादिसङ्घातस्य विद्वत्ता । अतः पारिशेष्यात् असंहतः आत्मा विद्वान् अविक्रियः इति तस्य विदुषः कर्मासम्भवात् आक्षेपो युक्तः ‘कथं स पुरुषः’ इति । यथा बुद्ध्याद्याहृतस्य शब्दाद्यर्थस्य अविक्रिय एव सन् बुद्धिवृत्त्यविवेकविज्ञानेन अविद्यया उपलब्धा आत्मा कल्प्यते, एवमेव आत्मानात्मविवेकज्ञानेन बुद्धिवृत्त्या विद्यया असत्यरूपयैव परमार्थतः अविक्रिय एव आत्मा विद्वानुच्यते । विदुषः कर्मासम्भववचनात् यानि कर्माणि शास्त्रेण विधीयन्ते तानि अविदुषो विहितानि इति भगवतो निश्चयोऽवगम्यते ॥
ननु विद्यापि अविदुष एव विधीयते, विदितविद्यस्य पिष्टपेषणवत् विद्याविधानानर्थक्यात् । तत्र अविदुषः कर्माणि विधीयन्ते न विदुषः इति विशेषो नोपपद्यते इति चेत् , न ; अनुष्ठेयस्य भावाभावविशेषोपपत्तेः । अग्निहोत्रादिविध्यर्थज्ञानोत्तरकालम् अग्निहोत्रादिकर्म अनेकसाधनोपसंहारपूर्वकमनुष्ठेयम् ‘कर्ता अहम् , मम कर्तव्यम्’ इत्येवंप्रकारविज्ञानवतः अविदुषः यथा अनुष्ठेयं भवति, न तु तथा ‘न जायते’ इत्याद्यात्मस्वरूपविध्यर्थज्ञानोत्तरकालभावि किञ्चिदनुष्ठेयं भवति ; किं तु ‘नाहं कर्ता, नाहं भोक्ता’ इत्याद्यात्मैकत्वाकर्तृत्वादिविषयज्ञानात् नान्यदुत्पद्यते इति एष विशेष उपपद्यते । यः पुनः ‘कर्ता अहम्’ इति वेत्ति आत्मानम् , तस्य ‘मम इदं कर्तव्यम्’ इति अवश्यंभाविनी बुद्धिः स्यात् ; तदपेक्षया सः अधिक्रियते इति तं प्रति कर्माणि सम्भवन्ति । स च अविद्वान् , ‘उभौ तौ न विजानीतः’(भ. गी. २ । १९) इति वचनात् , विशेषितस्य च विदुषः कर्माक्षेपवचनाच्च ‘कथं स पुरुषः’ इति । तस्मात् विशेषितस्य अविक्रियात्मदर्शिनः विदुषः मुमुक्षोश्च सर्वकर्मसंन्यासे एव अधिकारः । अत एव भगवान् नारायणः साङ्ख्यान् विदुषः अविदुषश्च कर्मिणः प्रविभज्य द्वे निष्ठे ग्राहयति — ‘ज्ञानयोगेन साङ्ख्यानां कर्मयोगेन योगिनाम्’(भ. गी. ३ । ३) इति । तथा च पुत्राय आह भगवान् व्यासः — ‘द्वाविमावथ पन्थानौ’(शां. २४१ । ६) इत्यादि । तथा च क्रियापथश्चैव पुरस्तात् पश्चात्संन्यासश्चेति । एतमेव विभागं पुनः पुनर्दर्शयिष्यति भगवान् — अतत्त्ववित् ‘अहङ्कारविमूढात्मा कर्ताहमिति मन्यते’(भ. गी. ३ । २७) , तत्त्ववित्तु नाहं करोमि इति । तथा च ‘सर्वकर्माणि मनसा संन्यस्यास्ते’(भ. गी. ५ । १३) इत्यादि ॥
तत्र केचित्पण्डितंमन्या वदन्ति — ‘जन्मादिषड्भावविक्रियारहितः अविक्रियः अकर्ता एकः अहमात्मा’ इति न कस्यचित् ज्ञानम् उत्पद्यते, यस्मिन् सति सर्वकर्मसंन्यासः उपदिश्यते इति । तन्न ; ‘न जायते’(भ. गी. २ । २०) इत्यादिशास्त्रोपदेशानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गात् । यथा च शास्त्रोपदेशसामर्थ्यात् धर्माधर्मास्तित्वविज्ञानं कर्तुश्च देहान्तरसम्बन्धविज्ञानमुत्पद्यते, तथा शास्त्रात् तस्यैव आत्मनः अविक्रियत्वाकर्तृत्वैकत्वादिविज्ञानं कस्मात् नोत्पद्यते इति प्रष्टव्याः ते । करणागोचरत्वात् इति चेत् , न ; ‘मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’(बृ. उ. ४ । ४ । १९) इति श्रुतेः । शास्त्राचार्योपदेशशमदमादिसंस्कृतं मनः आत्मदर्शने करणम् । तथा च तदधिगमाय अनुमाने आगमे च सति ज्ञानं नोत्पद्यत इति साहसमात्रमेतत् । ज्ञानं च उत्पद्यमानं तद्विपरीतमज्ञानम् अवश्यं बाधते इत्यभ्युपगन्तव्यम् । तच्च अज्ञानं दर्शितम् ‘हन्ता अहम् , हतः अस्मि’ इति ‘उभौ तौ न विजानीतः’ इति । अत्र च आत्मनः हननक्रियायाः कर्तृत्वं कर्मत्वं हेतुकर्तृत्वं च अज्ञानकृतं दर्शितम् । तच्च सर्वक्रियास्वपि समानं कर्तृत्वादेः अविद्याकृतत्वम् , अविक्रियत्वात् आत्मनः । विक्रियावान् हि कर्ता आत्मनः कर्मभूतमन्यं प्रयोजयति ‘कुरु’ इति । तदेतत् अविशेषेण विदुषः सर्वक्रियासु कर्तृत्वं हेतुकर्तृत्वं च प्रतिषेधति भगवान्वासुदेवः विदुषः कर्माधिकाराभावप्रदर्शनार्थम् ‘वेदाविनाशिनं . . . कथं स पुरुषः’ इत्यादिना । क्व पुनः विदुषः अधिकार इति एतदुक्तं पूर्वमेव ‘ज्ञानयोगेन साङ्ख्यानाम्’(भ. गी. ३ । ३) इति । तथा च सर्वकर्मसंन्यासं वक्ष्यति ‘सर्वकर्माणि मनसा’(भ. गी. ५ । १३) इत्यादिना ॥
ननु मनसा इति वचनात् न वाचिकानां कायिकानां च संन्यासः इति चेत् , न ; सर्वकर्माणि इति विशेषितत्वात् । मानसानामेव सर्वकर्मणामिति चेत् , न ; मनोव्यापारपूर्वकत्वाद्वाक्कायव्यापाराणां मनोव्यापाराभावे तदनुपपत्तेः । शास्त्रीयाणां वाक्कायकर्मणां कारणानि मानसानि कर्माणि वर्जयित्वा अन्यानि सर्वकर्माणि मनसा संन्यस्येदिति चेत् , न ; ‘नैव कुर्वन्न कारयन्’(भ. गी. ५ । १३) इति विशेषणात् । सर्वकर्मसंन्यासः अयं भगवता उक्तः मरिष्यतः न जीवतः इति चेत् , न ; ‘नवद्वारे पुरे देही आस्ते’(भ. गी. ५ । १३) इति विशेषणानुपपत्तेः । न हि सर्वकर्मसंन्यासेन मृतस्य तद्देहे आसनं सम्भवति । अकुर्वतः अकारयतश्च देहे संन्यस्य इति सम्बन्धः न देहे आस्ते इति चेत् , न ; सर्वत्र आत्मनः अविक्रियत्वावधारणात् , आसनक्रियायाश्च अधिकरणापेक्षत्वात् , तदनपेक्षत्वाच्च संन्यासस्य । सम्पूर्वस्तु न्यासशब्दः अत्र त्यागार्थः, न निक्षेपार्थः । तस्मात् गीताशास्त्रे आत्मज्ञानवतः संन्यासे एव अधिकारः, न कर्मणि इति तत्र तत्र उपरिष्टात् आत्मज्ञानप्रकरणे दर्शयिष्यामः ॥ २१ ॥
In plain words
With the verse 'Anyone who takes this Self to be a slayer' (2.19) he set down the claim: in the act of killing, the Self is neither the one who kills nor the one killed. Then with 'It is not born' he gave the reason — the Self undergoes no change at all. Now he gathers that claim to its conclusion —
'Knows' means truly understands; 'indestructible' means untouched by that final change called destruction; 'eternal' means it never transforms. Put those together with 'who knows' and you get the sense of the verse. This Self was already described in the last verse -- unborn, meaning it never began; undiminishing, meaning it never decays. So how -- in what possible way -- could a person who actually understands this go and kill someone, or arrange for someone to be killed? That's not a real question looking for an answer; it's Krishna making a point by denial: there simply is no way. And notice the reason is identical for both killing and causing-to-be-killed -- both rest on the fact that the Self doesn't change. So the real point being made here is total: for someone who knows this, action itself -- all of it -- falls away. The bit about 'causing to be killed' is only there as an example to make the point vivid.
Why exactly does Krishna raise this objection to action at all? It can't simply be because the Self has no action in it -- that's already been said, and it's true, but it isn't quite enough by itself. Because the person doing the knowing is not the same thing as an inert 'actionless' object out there. Someone can know a fence-post is inert and still go on acting perfectly normally -- knowing an object as actionless doesn't stop the knower from acting. So what's different here is this: the knower and the Self are one and the same. A body, a mind, this whole bundle of parts -- none of that is what knows. By process of elimination, what's left as 'the knower' is the Self alone, and the Self doesn't act. That's why, for someone who has actually realized this, action becomes impossible -- and that's why the objection lands. Here's the analogy: an object like a sound is, in itself, completely inert -- yet through the mind's confused, non-discriminating grasp of it, born of ignorance, that object gets mistaken for 'the one who perceives.' In exactly the same way, through discriminating knowledge of Self and not-Self -- itself just a function of the mind, not ultimately real in its own right -- what gets called 'the knower,' at the level of ultimate truth, is nothing but the actionless Self. So what this really tells us is Krishna's own conclusion: every action scripture prescribes is prescribed for someone who does not yet know.
Here's a sharp objection: doesn't the same logic apply to knowledge itself? Telling someone who already knows to go get knowledge would be like grinding flour that's already ground -- pointless. So if that's true, doesn't your whole distinction between 'action is for the ignorant, not the wise' fall apart? No, it doesn't -- and here's why. Once you gain knowledge of a ritual like the fire-offering, there's still something left to do: you still have to go gather the materials and perform it, because you now think 'I'm the one who must do this.' But once you gain knowledge of your own true nature -- 'I am not born' and so on -- there is nothing left over to do. Nothing gets added to your to-do list. Instead, from knowing you're one with the Self, that you were never really the doer, comes exactly this: nothing further arises. That's the real difference, and it holds up perfectly. But someone who still thinks 'I am the doer' when they think of the Self -- for that person, the thought 'this is mine to do' is unavoidable. And because of that thought, they become someone action applies to; action becomes possible for them. And that person is, by definition, still a non-knower -- exactly as the verse said: 'neither of those two actually knows.' And it's exactly that specially-qualified knower for whom Krishna raises the objection 'how could that person act at all?' So it is only for the knower who has actually seen the actionless Self, and for the one seeking liberation, that renouncing all action makes sense. This is precisely why Krishna sorts the followers of Sankhya into two groups -- those who know and those who don't yet, and still act -- and gives each their own path: knowledge for the knowers, action for those still practicing. Vyasa tells his own son the same thing: there are two paths. And the usual order is: action first, renunciation after. Krishna will keep coming back to this same distinction -- someone who hasn't yet seen the truth, lost in ego, thinks 'I am doing this'; someone who has seen it simply says, 'I am not acting.' As he'll put it later: having renounced every action in the mind, one simply dwells at rest.
Some people who think of themselves as scholars object: just saying 'I am the one actionless Self, beyond birth and every other change, not the doer' doesn't actually produce real knowledge in anyone -- so how could that ever be grounds for giving up all action? That objection doesn't hold. If it did, then the whole scriptural teaching 'you were never born' would be pointless to teach at all -- which can't be right. Think about it: scripture's teaching gives you real knowledge that good and bad deeds exist, and gives someone acting in the world real knowledge that they'll take another body later. So why on earth would scripture be powerless to give that same person real knowledge that the Self doesn't act, isn't the doer, is one without a second? There's no reason it should fail there and succeed everywhere else -- that's the question these scholars need to answer. 'Maybe because it's beyond the reach of the senses,' they might say. No -- because scripture itself says the Self 'is to be seen by the mind alone.' The mind, once it's been shaped by the teaching of scripture and a teacher, by inner calm and self-control, becomes exactly the right instrument for seeing the Self. And when both reasoning and scriptural testimony point the same way, insisting that no real knowledge can come of it is just reckless talk. And here's something else worth holding onto: real knowledge, the moment it arises, necessarily displaces its opposite -- ignorance. We've already seen that ignorance on display: someone thinking 'I killed him' or 'I was killed' -- that's exactly what 'neither of those two actually knows' was pointing at. Right there, the Self's supposed role as killer, as victim, as the one who orders a killing, was shown to be nothing but ignorance talking. And that's true of every action, not just killing -- because the Self never changes, full stop. It's only something capable of change that could ever push someone else around and say 'go do this.' That's exactly why Krishna, without exception, strips the knower of any role as doer or instigator in any action whatsoever -- to make it completely clear that action has no place at all for someone who knows. That's what 'knowing the indestructible... how could that person act?' is really saying. So where, then, does action still apply? Right where he already told us: to the followers of Sankhya, it's the path of knowledge; to those who act, the path of action. And as he'll say again later: having renounced every action in the mind...
Someone might object: doesn't 'mentally' mean that speech and the body don't need to be renounced? No -- it's qualified by 'all actions,' which covers everything. Then does 'all actions' really just mean all mental ones? No again -- because speech and bodily action are always preceded by a mental act; take away the mental act and the rest simply doesn't happen, so renouncing the mind covers them too. Maybe it means: keep doing your scripturally prescribed speech and bodily acts, just drop the mental acts that would normally drive some other action? No -- because the verse specifically says 'neither acting nor causing to act,' which rules that out. Is this total renunciation only meant for someone about to die, not someone still living? No -- because the same verse describes 'the embodied one dwelling in the nine-gated city,' and a corpse can't dwell anywhere. Does it perhaps mean 'not acting, having renounced -- dwells in the body' rather than actually 'dwells in the body'? No, again -- because Krishna consistently holds that the Self never acts in the first place, dwelling requires something to dwell in, and renunciation itself needs nothing at all. And one more thing: this word for renunciation, with its prefix, means letting go, not setting something down and picking it up again later. So in the Gita's teaching, only someone who has actually realized the Self is qualified for renunciation -- not for action. We'll keep showing this, piece by piece, all through the section on Self-knowledge.
Close to the Sanskrit
By this mantra, 'he who knows this one as a slayer' (Gītā 2.19), having declared that [the Self] is neither the agent nor the object of the act of killing, and having stated, by 'it is not born' (Gītā 2.20), the reason — namely its changelessness — he now concludes the matter that was declared —
'Veda' means understands; 'avināśinam' [means] devoid of the last modification, namely destruction; 'nityam' means devoid of transformation -- 'who knows' -- thus is the [syntactic] connection. This one, whose characteristic was stated by the previous verse [as] 'unborn,' i.e. devoid of birth, [and] 'undiminishing,' i.e. devoid of decline -- how, in what manner, does that knowing person, who is qualified [to act], 'kill,' i.e. perform the act of killing? Or how does he 'cause to be slain,' i.e. cause another to kill? 'He does not kill anyone in any way, nor does he cause anyone to be killed in any way' -- in both cases this is merely a rhetorical denial, since the sense of a genuine question is impossible here. And since the reason, namely being without modification, is the same [in both cases], the negation of all action for the knower is exactly what is intended by the Lord as the purport of this section. As for '[causing] to be slain,' the objection is stated merely by way of illustration.
Seeing what particular reason for the impossibility of action for the knower does the Lord raise this objection to actions, [saying] 'how can that person...'? Objection: it has already been said that the Self's actionlessness is the particular cause of the impossibility of all action -- true, it was said. But that alone is not the [sufficient] particular reason, because the knower is distinct from the merely actionless Self [as such]. If one objects: 'is it not that for one who has known even an inert post to be inert, action is nonetheless not impossible?' -- [reply:] no; because the knower [here] is identical with the Self. The aggregate of body and so forth does not possess knowership. Therefore, by elimination, the unaggregated Self alone is the knower, and it is actionless -- therefore, because action is impossible for that knower, the objection 'how can that person...' is valid. Just as an object such as sound, apprehended by the intellect and the senses, though it is itself actionless, is [wrongly] imagined to be the perceiving Self, through the non-discriminating cognition that is a function of the intellect, caused by nescience; in exactly the same way, through discriminating knowledge of Self and non-Self, [which is] a function of the intellect, by what is called knowledge -- itself of an unreal nature -- the actionless Self alone is, from the standpoint of ultimate truth, called 'the knower.' From this statement of the impossibility of action for the knower, it is understood that the Lord's determination is: whatever actions are enjoined by scripture are enjoined for the non-knower.
Objection: is knowledge too enjoined only for the non-knower, since enjoining knowledge for one who has already attained knowledge would be pointless, like grinding what is already ground? In that case, [your claim that] actions are enjoined for the non-knower and not for the knower -- this distinction does not hold up. [Reply:] No; because of a specific difference in whether the thing to be accomplished exists or not [before versus after knowledge]. Just as, for one who, after gaining knowledge of the meaning of the injunction for the agnihotra rite and the like, has the notion 'I am the doer, this is my duty,' the agnihotra rite and the like, preceded by the gathering of many implements, is still to be performed -- in that same way it is not the case that, after gaining knowledge of the meaning of the teaching about the Self's own true nature, [namely] 'is not born' and so on, anything at all remains to be performed; rather, from the knowledge whose subject is oneness with the Self, non-agency and so on -- 'I am not the doer, I am not the enjoyer' and so on -- nothing further arises. This is how that distinction holds up. But whoever knows the Self [thinking] 'I am the doer' -- for him the inevitable notion 'this is to be done by me' would necessarily arise; because of that, he becomes qualified [for action]; and so, for him, actions become possible. And he is a non-knower, by the statement 'both of those two do not know' (Bhagavad Gita 2.19), and because of the statement raising the objection about action for that specially-qualified knower, 'how can that person...' [Bhagavad Gita 2.21]. Therefore, only for that specially-qualified knower who perceives the actionless Self, and for the seeker of liberation, is there a qualification for the renunciation of all action. For this very reason, the Lord Narayana, having divided the followers of Sankhya into knowers and non-knowers who perform action, makes them adopt two [distinct] paths: 'by the path of knowledge for the followers of Sankhya, by the path of action for the yogis' (Bhagavad Gita 3.3). And likewise the Lord Vyasa says to his son: 'these two, now, are the paths...' (Shanti Parva 241.6) and so on. And likewise: 'the path of action indeed comes first, and afterward renunciation' -- so it is said. This very same distinction the Lord will show again and again -- one who does not know the truth [thinks]: 'the one whose self is bewildered by ego-sense thinks "I am the doer"' (Bhagavad Gita 3.27); but one who knows the truth [thinks]: 'I do not act.' And likewise: 'having renounced all actions mentally, he dwells...' (Bhagavad Gita 5.13) and so on.
There, some who consider themselves scholars say: from [the statement] 'devoid of the six changes of state beginning with birth, actionless, non-agent, the one Self -- I am' -- no knowledge arises for anyone, upon which the renunciation of all action could be taught. That is wrong; because it would entail the absurdity that the scriptural teaching 'is not born' and so on [Bhagavad Gita 2.20] is pointless. Just as, from the efficacy of scriptural teaching, knowledge of the existence of merit and demerit arises, and, for the agent, knowledge of the connection with another body [in a future life] arises, so too, from scripture, why should knowledge of that same Self's actionlessness, non-agency, oneness and so on not arise? -- this should be asked of them. If it be objected: 'because it is beyond the range of the sense-instruments' -- no; because of the scriptural statement 'it is to be perceived by the mind alone' [Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.19]. The mind, purified by the teaching of scripture and teacher, by tranquility, self-control and so on, is the instrument in the perception of the Self. And thus, when inference and scriptural testimony, both conducive to that attainment, are present, to say that knowledge does not arise is a mere rash assertion. And it must be admitted that knowledge, when it arises, necessarily removes its opposite, namely ignorance. And that ignorance has already been shown: '[thinking] I am the slayer, I am slain' -- [as shown by] 'both of those two do not know.' And here, the Self's agency, objecthood, and causative-agency with respect to the act of killing have been shown to be produced by ignorance. And that -- namely, that agency and so on are produced by nescience -- is the same in all actions too, because the Self is actionless. For an agent subject to change impels another, who becomes his object, [saying] 'do this!' Therefore, without distinction, the Lord Vasudeva negates agency and causative-agency for the knower in all actions, for the purpose of showing that there is no scope for action for the knower -- by the words 'knowing the indestructible... how can that person...' and so on. But then where does the knower have scope [for action]? This has already been said before: 'by the path of knowledge for the followers of Sankhya' [Bhagavad Gita 3.3]. And likewise he will teach the renunciation of all action: 'all actions... mentally...' [Bhagavad Gita 5.13] and so on.
Objection: from the statement 'mentally,' [it follows that] there is no renunciation of vocal and bodily [actions]. [Reply:] No; because it is qualified by [the word] 'all actions.' [Objection:] Then [does it mean the renunciation of] only mental [actions], among all actions? [Reply:] No; because, since vocal and bodily activities are preceded by mental activity, in the absence of mental activity that [vocal or bodily activity] would not occur. [Objection:] Does it mean: having excluded the mental acts that are the causes of scripturally-enjoined vocal and bodily acts, one should renounce all the other actions, mentally? [Reply:] No; because of the qualifying phrase 'neither acting nor causing to act' [Bhagavad Gita 5.13]. [Objection:] Is this renunciation of all action spoken of by the Lord for one about to die, not for one who is living? [Reply:] No; because of the inapplicability of the qualifying phrase 'the embodied one dwells in the nine-gated city' [Bhagavad Gita 5.13]. For it is not possible for a dead person to dwell in that body by renunciation of all action. [Objection:] Does the connection [of words] mean: 'not acting and not causing to act, having renounced, [he dwells] in the body' -- not '[he] dwells in the body'? [Reply:] No; because everywhere [Krishna holds] the Self's actionlessness as settled, and because the act of dwelling depends on a location, while renunciation does not depend on that. Moreover, the word 'nyāsa' with the prefix 'sam' here means 'abandonment,' not 'depositing.' Therefore, in the science of the Gita, only the one possessing Self-knowledge has qualification for renunciation, not for action; this we shall show later, at each relevant place, in the section on Self-knowledge.