2.19 He who takes the Self to be the slayer and he who thinks It is slain, neither of them ï1knowsï1. It slays not, nor is It slain.

2.19 Ya enam etc. Whosoever veiws This i.e., the Self and the body, to be the slayer and the slain, ignorance is in him. That is why he is in bondage. The same [point the Lord] clarifies -

2.19. He who thinks this indweller to be the slayer, and he who thinks it to be slain—both of them do not truly know; for it neither slays nor is slain. Commentary: 'He who knows it as the slayer'—he who considers this indweller to be the slayer does not know correctly. The reason is that there is no doership in the indweller. Just as any craftsman, however clever, cannot perform any work without a tool, similarly, this indweller cannot do anything by itself without the body. Therefore, in the thirteenth chapter, the Lord has said that all actions are performed by Prakriti (Nature) alone—he who realizes this, realizes the non-doership of the indweller (13.29). The meaning is that there is no doership in the body, but this indweller, by identifying with the body and forming a relationship with it, considers itself to be the doer of actions performed by the body. If it does not form a relationship with the body, then it is not the doer of any action. 'And he who thinks it to be slain'—he who considers it to be slain also does not know correctly. Just as this indweller is not the slayer, similarly, it is not subject to being slain; because no modification ever occurs in it. That in which modification occurs, in which there is change—i.e., that which is subject to birth and destruction—only that can be slain. 'Both of them do not know; it neither slays nor is slain'—both of them do not know, meaning he who considers this indweller to be the slayer does not know correctly, and he who considers it to be subject to being slain also does not know correctly. Here a question arises: Does he who considers this indweller to be both the slayer and the slain know correctly? The answer is that he too does not know correctly. The reason is that this indweller is not truly like that. It is neither the destroyer nor subject to destruction. It remains eternally and continuously the same, without modification. Therefore, one should not grieve concerning this indweller. Since the context before Arjuna is that of war, here the indweller is described as devoid of the actions of slaying and being slain. In truth, it is devoid of all actions. Connection: In answer to why this indweller is not subject to being slain, it is said...