यं हि न व्यथयन्त्येते पुरुषं पुरुषर्षभ |
समदुःखसुखं धीरं सोऽमृतत्वाय कल्पते ||२-१५||


yaṃ hi na vyathayantyete puruṣaṃ puruṣarṣabha .
samaduḥkhasukhaṃ dhīraṃ so.amṛtatvāya kalpate ||2-15||



2.15. O the best among persons ! That wise person becomes immortal whom these (situations) do not trouble and to whom the pleasure and pain are eal.

Shri Purohit Swami

2.15 The hero whose soul is unmoved by circumstance, who accepts pleasure and pain with equanimity, only he is fit for immortality.

Sri Abhinav Gupta

2.15 But, because all these different situations are of the nature of coming and going, on that account itself are they not to be lamented on ? It is not so. As for instance : What is this which is termed ‘coming’ ? If it is ‘birth’, what is that ‘birth’ itself ? It is wrong to say that is the same as gaining the self by what is non-existent. For, to be of the nature of non-existence, is indeed to be devoid of every inherent nature and to be devoid of the very self. If a thing is devoid of the self and devoid of every nature, how is it possible to convert it into what has an intrinsic nature ? Surely, it is impossible to convert the non-blue into blue. For, it is faulty and undesirable to covert the non-blue into blue. For, it is faulty and undesirable to conclude that a thing with certain in nature changes to be of a different nature. Hence the scritpure goes - ‘The intrinsic nature of beings would not cease to exist, e.g., the heat of the sun’. On the other hand, if the ‘birth’ signifies the gaining of self just by what [really] exists, even then, why the lamentability on its coming ? For, what has gained a self, could never be non-existent and conseently it would be eternal.

Likewise, is the act of ‘going’ also meant for the existent or the non-existent ? What is non-existent is just non-existent [for ever.] How can there be a non-existence-nature even in the case of that which is of the existence-nature ? If it is said that it is of the non-existence-nature in the second moment; [since its birth], then it should be so even in the first moment; and so nothing would be existent. For, the intrinsic nature [ever] remains unabandoned.

But is it not that the destruction of it (i.e., of a given thing, like a pot) is brought about by the stroke of a hammer etc.? Yet, if that destruction is altogether different [from the existent one i.e. the pot], then what does it matter for what is existent ? But, it is not be seen [at that time] ? Yet, what is actually existent (pot) may not be seen just as when it is covered with a cloth; but it has not turned to be altogether different. In fact, it has been said [in the scriptures] that this is not different [from the existent]. Summarising all these, [the Lord] says -

Sri Ramanuja

2.15 That person endowed with courage, who considers pain as inevitable as pleasure, and who performs war and such other acts suited to his station in life without attachment to the results and only as a means of attaining immortality - one whom the impact of weapons in war etc., which involve soft or harsh contacts, do not trouble, that person only attains immortality, not a person like you, who cannnot bear grief. As the selves are immortal, what is to be done here, is this much only. This is the meaning.

Because of the immortality of the selves and the natural destructibility of the bodies, there is no cause for grief. It was told (previously): ‘The wise grieve neither for the dead nor for the living’ (2. 11). Now the Lord elucidates the same view.

Sri Shankaracharya

2.15 What will happen to one who bears cold and heat? Listen: Verily, the person৷৷.,’etc. (O Arjuna) hi, verily; yam purusam, the person whom; ete, these, cold and heat mentioned above; na, do not; vyathayanti, torment, do not perturb; dhiram, the wise man; sama-duhkha-sukham, to whom sorrow and happiness are the same, who is free from happiness and sorrow when subjected to pleasure and pain, because of his realization of the enternal Self; sah, he, who is established in the realization of the enternal Self, who forbears the opposites; kalpate, becomes fit; amrtattvaya, for Immortality, for the state of Immortality, i.e. for Liberation.

Swami Adidevananda

2.15 For, he whom these do not affect, O chief of men, and to whom pain and pleasure are the same - that steadfast man alone is worthy of immortality.

Swami Gambirananda

2.15 O (Arjuna, who are) foremost among men, verily, the person whom these do not torment, the wise man to whom sorrow and happhiness are the same he is fit for Immortality.

Swami Sivananda

2.15 That firm man whom, surely, these afflict not, O chief among men, to whom pleasure and pain are the same, is fit for attaining immortality.


Swami Sivananda

2.15 यम् whom? हि surely? न व्यथयन्ति afflict not? एते these? पुरुषम् man? पुरुषर्षभ chief among men? समदुःखसुखम् same in pleasure and pain? धीरम् firm man? सः he? अमृतत्वाय for immortality? कल्पते is fit.Commentary – Dehadhyasa or identification of the Self with the body is the cause of pleasure and pain. The more you are able to identify yourself with the immortal? allpervading Self? the less will you be affected by the pairs of opposites (Dvandvas? pleasure and pain? etc.)Titiksha or the power of endurance develops the willpower. Calm endurance in pleasure and pain? and heat and cold is one of the alifications of an aspirant on the path of Jnana Yoga. It is one of the Shatsampat or sixfold virtues. It is a condition of right knowledge. Titiksha by itself cannot give you Moksha or liberation? but still? when coupled with discrimination and dispassion? it becomes a means to the attainment of Immortality or knowledge of the Self. (Cf.XVII.53)