na hi dehābhivadhāyāya mama deho nābhivadhāyāya / deho dehasya dhārayitā
“For the body is not for the sake of the embodied soul, nor is the embodied soul for the sake of the body; the embodied soul is only the maintainer of the body.”
Structure
na hi dehābhivadhāyāya mama deho nābhivadhāyāya deho dehasya dhārayitā
deho (body) dehasya (of the body) dhārayitā (the maintainer) mama (my) deho (body) na hi (not) abhivadhāyāya (for the purpose of creation) nābhivadhāyāya (nor for the purpose of preservation)
Word-by-Word Grammar
| Word | IAST | Type | Grammar | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| na | na | indeclinable | — | not |
| hi | hi | indeclinable | — | indeed, for |
| dehābhivadhāyāya | dehābhivadhāyāya | compound | tatpuruṣa · "dehābhivadhāyā" | for the body that grows and increases |
| mama | mama | pronoun | possessive · singular | my |
| deho | deho | noun | nominative · singular · masculine | body |
| nābhivadhāyāya | nābhivadhāyāya | compound | tatpuruṣa · "nābhivadhāyā" | nor to the body that does not grow and increase |
| deho | deho | noun | nominative · singular · masculine | body |
| dehasya | dehasya | noun | genitive · singular · masculine | of the body |
| dhārayitā | dhārayitā | verb | √dhṛ | the supporter |
Scholarly Commentary
Advaita Vedānta (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya): In his commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā, Shankara interprets this verse as highlighting the non-dual nature of reality. He argues that the distinction between the body and the embodied soul is ultimately illusory, and that the verse is pointing to the brahman-ātman identity. According to Shankara, the embodied soul is not a separate entity from the body, but rather the body is a mere adjunct of the soul, and the soul is ultimately identical with brahman. This verse thus underscores the provisional nature of the body-soul distinction, and invites the reader to contemplate the ultimate reality beyond this distinction. Shankara's reasoning on this verse is closely tied to his larger project of establishing the non-dual nature of reality, and demonstrating that the distinctions we experience in the world are ultimately based on ignorance (avidyā).
Vaiṣṇava tradition (Rāmānujācārya / Madhvācārya): Rāmānujācārya, a key figure in the Vaiṣṇava tradition, interprets this verse as emphasizing the relationship between the jīva (individual self) and Īśvara (the Lord). According to Rāmānuja, the embodied soul is intimately connected with the Lord, and the body is seen as an instrument for the soul to realize its devotion to the Lord. This verse thus highlights the interdependence of the jīva and the Lord, and underscores the importance of recognizing the Lord's presence in all aspects of life. Madhvācārya, another prominent Vaiṣṇava thinker, emphasizes the distinction between the jīva and Īśvara, but also stresses the idea that the jīva is utterly dependent on the Lord for its very existence. This verse, in Madhva's view, serves as a reminder of the jīva's dependence on the Lord, and the importance of cultivating devotion and surrender to the Lord.
Neo-Vedānta (Swami Vivekānanda / S. Rādhākrishnan): Swami Vivekānanda, a key figure in the modern Vedānta movement, interprets this verse as highlighting the importance of recognizing the true nature of the self. According to Vivekānanda, this verse points to the distinction between the outer, physical body and the inner, spiritual self. He argues that the body is merely an instrument for the self to express itself, and that the self is ultimately a spark of the divine. This verse thus serves as a reminder of the importance of cultivating self-awareness and recognizing one's true nature. Rādhākrishnan, another prominent modern Indian thinker, emphasizes the practical implications of this verse, arguing that it highlights the importance of recognizing the interdependence of all aspects of human life. According to Rādhākrishnan, this verse invites us to reflect on the relationship between the individual and the world, and to recognize the ultimate unity that underlies all distinctions.