Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 13

व्याख्या-- 'देहिनोऽस्मिन्यथा देहे (टिप्पणी प0 50) कौमारं यौवनं जरा'-- शरीरधारीके इस शरीरमें पहले बाल्यावस्था आती है, फिर युवावस्था आती है और फिर वृद्धावस्था आती है। तात्पर्य है कि शरीरमें कभी एक अवस्था नहीं रहती, उसमें निरन्तर परिवर्तन होता रहता है।
यहाँ 'शरीरधारीके इस शरीरमें' ऐसा कहनेसे सिद्ध होता है शरीरी अलग है और शरीर अलग है। शरीरी द्रष्टा
है और शरीर दृश्य है। अतः शरीरमें बालकपन आदि अवस्थाओंका जो परिवर्तन है, वह परिवर्तन शरीरीमें नहीं है।
'तथा देहान्तरप्राप्तिः'-- जैसे शरीरकी कुमार, युवा आदि अवस्थाएँ होती हैं, ऐसे ही देहान्तरकी अर्थात् दूसरे शरीरकी प्राप्ति होती है। जैसे स्थूलशरीर बालकसे जवान एवं जवानसे बूढ़ा हो जाता है, तो इन अवस्थाओंके परिवर्तनको लेकर कोई शोक नहीं होता, ऐसे ही शरीरी एक शरीरसे दूसरे शरीरमें जाता है, तो इस विषयमें भी शोक नहीं होना चाहिये। जैसे स्थूलशरीरके रहते-रहते कुमार युवा आदि अवस्थाएँ होती हैं ऐसे ही सूक्ष्म और कारणशरीरके रहतेरहते देहान्तरकी प्राप्ति होती है अर्थात् जैसे बालकपन, जवानी आदि स्थूल-शरीरकी अवस्थाएँ हैं, ऐसे देहान्तरकी प्राप्ति (मृत्युके बाद दूसरा शरीर धारण करना) सूक्ष्म और कारण-शरीरकी अवस्था है।

स्थूलशरीरके रहते-रहते कुमार आदि अवस्थाओंका परिवर्तन होता है--यह तो स्थूल दृष्टि है। सूक्ष्म दृष्टिसे देखा जाय तो अवस्थाओंकी तरह स्थूलशरीरमें भी परिवर्तन होता रहता है। बाल्यावस्थामें जो शरीर था, वह युवावस्थामें नहीं है। वास्तवमें ऐसा कोई भी क्षण नहीं है, जिस क्षणमें स्थूलशरीरका परिवर्तन न होता हो। ऐसे ही सूक्ष्म और कारण-शरीरमें भी प्रतिक्षण परिवर्तन होता रहता है, जो देहान्तररूपसे स्पष्ट देखनेमें आता है (टिप्पणी प0 51.1) ।
अब विचार यह करना है कि स्थूलशरीरका तो हमें ज्ञान होता है, पर सूक्ष्म और कारण-शरीरका हमें ज्ञान नहीं होता। अतः जब सूक्ष्म और कारण-शरीरका ज्ञान भी नहीं होता, तो उनके परिवर्तनका ज्ञान हमें कैसे हो सकता है? इसका उत्तर है कि जैसे स्थूलशरीरका ज्ञान उसकी अवस्थाओंको लेकर होता है, ऐसे ही सूक्ष्म और कारण-शरीरका ज्ञान भी उसकी अवस्थाओंको लेकर होता है। स्थूलशरीरकी 'जाग्रत्' सूक्ष्म-शरीरकी 'स्वप्न' और कारण-शरीरकी 'सुषुप्ति' अवस्था मानी जाती है। मनुष्य अपनी बाल्यावस्थामें अपनेको स्वप्नमें बालक देखता है, युवावस्थामें स्वप्नमें युवा देखता है और वृद्धावस्थामें स्वप्नमें वृद्ध देखता है। इससे सिद्ध हो गया कि स्थूलशरीरके साथ-साथ सूक्ष्मशरीरका भी परिवर्तन होता है। ऐसे ही सुषुप्ति-अवस्था बाल्यावस्थामें ज्यादा होती है, युवावस्थामें कम होती है और वृद्धावस्थामें वह बहुत कम हो जाती है; अतः इससे कारणशरीरका परिवर्तन भी सिद्ध हो गया। दूसरी बात, बाल्यावस्था और युवावस्थामें नींद लेनेपर शरीर और इन्द्रियोंमें जैसी ताजगी आती है, वैसी ताजगी वृद्धावस्थामें नींद लेनेपर नहीं आती अर्थात् वृद्धावस्थामें बाल्य और युवा-अवस्था-जैसा विश्राम नहीं मिलता। इस रीतिसे भी कारण-शरीरका परिवर्तन सिद्ध होता है।
जिसको दूसरा-देवता, पशु, पक्षी आदिका शरीर मिलता है, उसको उस शरीरमें (देहाध्यासके कारण) 'मैं यही हूँ'--ऐसा अनुभव होता है, तो यह सूक्ष्मशरीरका परिवर्तन हो गया। ऐसे ही कारण-शरीरमें स्वभाव (प्रकृति) रहता है, जिसको स्थूल दृष्टिसे आदत कहते हैं। वह आदत देवताकी और होती है तथा पशु-पक्षी आदिकी और होती है, तो यह कारण-शरीरका परिवर्तन हो गया।

अगर शरीरी-(देही-) का परिवर्तन होता, तो अवस्थाओंके बदलनेपर भी 'मैं वही हूँ' (टिप्पणी प0 51.2)--ऐसा ज्ञान नहीं होता। परन्तु अवस्थाओंके बदलनेपर भी 'जो पहले बालक था, जवान था, वही मैं अब हूँ'--ऐसा ज्ञान होता है। इससे सिद्ध होता है कि शरीरीमें अर्थात् स्वयंमें परिवर्तन नहीं हुआ है।
यहाँ एक शंका हो सकती है कि स्थूलशरीरकी अवस्थाओंके बदलनेपर तो उनका ज्ञान होता है, पर शरीरान्तरकी प्राप्ति होनेपर पहलेके शरीरका ज्ञान क्यों नहीं होता ?पूर्वशरीरका ज्ञान न होनेमें कारण यह है कि मृत्यु और जन्मके समय बहुत ज्यादा कष्ट होता है। उस कष्टके कारण बुद्धिमें पूर्वजन्मकी स्मृति नहीं रहती। जैसे लकवा मार जानेपर, अधिक वृद्धावस्था होनेपर बुद्धिमें पहले जैसा ज्ञान नहीं रहता, ऐसे ही मृत्युकालमें तथा जन्मकालमें
बहुत बड़ा धक्का लगनेपर पूर्वजन्मका ज्ञान नहीं रहता। (टिप्पणी प0 51.3) परन्तु जिसकी मृत्युमें ऐसा कष्ट नहीं होता अर्थात् शरीरकी अवस्थान्तरकी प्राप्तकी तरह अनायास ही देहान्तरकी प्राप्ति हो जाती है, उसकी बुद्धिमें पूर्वजन्मकी स्मृति रह सकती है (टिप्पणी प0 51.4) ।
अब विचार करें कि जैसा ज्ञान अवस्थान्तरकी प्राप्तिमें होता है, वैसा ज्ञान देहान्तरकी प्राप्तिमें नहीं होता; परन्तु 'मैं हूँ' इस प्रकार अपनी सत्ताका ज्ञान तो सबको रहता है। जैसे, सुषुप्ति-(गाढ़-निद्रा-) में अपना कुछ भी ज्ञान नहीं रहता, पर जगनेपर मनुष्य कहता है कि ऐसी गाढ़ नींद आयी कि मेरेको कुछ पता नहीं रहा, तो 'कुछ पता नहीं रहा'--इसका ज्ञान तो है ही। सोनेसे पहले मैं जो था, वही मैं जगनेके बाद हूँ, तो सुषुप्तिके समय भी मैं वही था--इस प्रकार अपनी सत्ताका ज्ञान अखण्डरूपसे निरन्तर रहता है। अपनी सत्ताके अभावका ज्ञान कभी किसीको नहीं होता। शरीरधारीकी सत्ताका सद्भाव अखण्डरूपसे रहता है, तभी तो मुक्ति होती है और मुक्त-अवस्थामें वह रहता है। हाँ, जीवन्मुक्त-अवस्थामें उसको शरीरान्तरोंका ज्ञान भले ही न हो, पर मैं तीनों शरीरोंसे अलग हूँ--ऐसा अनुभव तो होता ही है।
'धीरस्तत्र न मुह्यति'-- धीर वही है, जिसको सत्असत्का बोध हो गया है। ऐसा धीर मनुष्य उस विषयमें कभी मोहित नहीं होता, उसको कभी सन्देह नहीं होता। इसका अर्थ यह नहीं है कि उस धीर मनुष्यको देहान्तरकी प्राप्ति होती है। ऊँच-नीच योनियोंमें जन्म होनेका कारण गुणोंका सङ्ग है, और गुणोंसे सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद होनेपर धीर मनुष्यको देहान्तरकी प्राप्ति हो ही नहीं सकती।
यहाँ 'तत्र' पदका अर्थ 'देहान्तर-प्राप्तिके विषयमें' नहीं है, प्रत्युत देह-देहीके विषयमें' है। तात्पर्य है कि देह क्या है? देही क्या है? परिवर्तनशील क्या है? अपरिवर्तनशील क्या है? अनित्य क्या है?--नित्य क्या है असत् क्या है सत् क्या है विकारी क्या है विकारी क्या है--इस विषयमें वह मोहित नहीं होता। देह और देही सर्वथा अलग हैं इस विषयमें उसको कभी मोह नहीं होता। उसको अपनी असङ्गताका अखण्ड ज्ञान रहता है।

सम्बन्ध-- अनित्य वस्तु शरीर आदिको लेकर जो शोक होता है उसकी निवृत्तिके लिये कहते हैं

आत्मा किसके सदृश नित्य है इसपर दृष्टान्त कहते हैं जिसका देह है वह देही है उस देहीकी अर्थात् शरीरधारी आत्माकी इस वर्तमान शरीरमें जैसे कौमार बाल्यावस्था यौवनतरुणावस्था और जरा वृद्धावस्था ये परस्पर विलक्षण तीनों अवस्थाएँ होती हैं। इनमें पहली अवस्थाके नाशसे आत्मका नाश नहीं होता और दूसरी अवस्थाकी उत्पत्तिसे आत्माकी उत्पत्ति नहीं होती तो फिर क्या होता है कि निर्विकार आत्माको ही दूसरी और तीसरी अवस्थाकी प्राप्ति होती हुई देखी गयी है। वैसे ही निर्विकार आत्माको ही देहान्तरकी प्राप्ति अर्थात् इस शरीरसे दूसरे शरीरका नाम देहान्तर है उसकी प्राप्ति होती है ( होती हुईसी दीखती है )। ऐसा होनेसे अर्थात् आत्माको निर्विकार और नित्य समझ लेनेके कारण धीर बुद्धिमान् इस विषयमें मोहित नहीं होता मोहको प्राप्त नहीं होता।

Objection: "In one who abandons a former body and accepts a new body, the delusion of being subject to origin and destruction might arise due to mutability?"—He raises this doubt with "Tatra" (There). Meaning, once eternality has been established as the reason for the proposition of being 'unworthy of grief,' (this doubt arises).

Even though there is a difference in states, since there is factually no change (in the substance), the eternality of the Self is reasonable—He propounds this in the next verse with the support of an example, saying "Drishtantam" (Example).

Not only through scripture (Agama) is the Self eternal, but also (it is inferred) from the continuity of past impressions (samskaras) in another birth, just like the change of states (in this life)—He says this with "Dehinah" etc.

"Dehavattvam" (State of being embodied) means being the possessor of the notion of "I" and "Mine" regarding that body. In "Tasam" (of them), the genitive case is used for specification/selection.

In "Dhiman" (The wise one), "Dhi" (intellect) is intended; meaning, the knowledge of the Self's eternality through Shruti, Smriti, and reasoning.

"Evam sati"—meaning, when the eternality is fully comprehended due to the factual absence of modification.

He gives an example in that regard with "Dehinah." "Dehi" (The Embodied) is he who possesses a body (Deha). Just as for him (the soul), there are three states of the same entity within this body, so is the attainment of another body. "Tatra evam sati"—In such a situation—the "Dhira" (wise one), meaning one possessing the knowledge of the Self's eternality, is not deluded.

Objection: "Is it not a deficiency on the part of the Commentator (Shankaracharya) not to have introduced the opposing views by raising doubts in these verses?" Answer: No. Because subsequent statements exist such as "The wise do not grieve," "The wise one is not deluded there," "Endure them, O Bharata," and "Whom these do not afflict." The explanation of the Self's eternality is the direct meaning of the words for the purpose of removing grief; we do not hear statements like "The one who argues the Self is non-eternal is a fool" in these texts. Furthermore, the refutation of the opponent's view is established by implication through the description of the Self's eternality etc. Also, since erroneous views have been refuted by him personally in the Shariraka Bhashya (Brahma Sutra Commentary), there is no deficiency in not introducing them here.

Objection: "This (change of states) happens only if the Embodied (Soul) exists, but that very existence is unproven." Answer: No, (it is proven by) "Dehino'smin" (The embodied soul in this body). Just as despite the difference in bodies like childhood etc., the Embodied one is established as the 'Witness' (Ikshita) of those states; similarly, even in the attainment of another body, He is the Witness (and thus exists). For, the experience of childhood etc. is not possible for the inert body, as it is not seen in a dead body.

Objection: "In the dead, the absence of experience is due to the departure of air (prana) etc.?" Objection: "And this (identity of body and self) is proven by the experience 'I am a man'?" Answer: No. Even when the body exists exactly as is, in deep sleep etc., special cognitions like "I am a man" are not seen.

The identification is superimposed on the mind "equally" (or conventionally), like (fire/image) in wood etc. And there is Shruti (scriptural evidence). And its (Shruti's) validity is like that of Perception etc. Not like the Buddhist texts etc., because it is Apaurusheya (not of human origin). In the non-human, defects like human ignorance cannot be imagined.

And without the 'Apaurusheyatva' of some sentence, the establishment of Dharma etc., which is accepted by all tenets, cannot happen. He who does not accept those (Dharma/Adharma) is not a "Samayi" (one holding a valid doctrine), because he is purposeless. Objection: "Let there be no Dharma, as it is undefinable?" Answer: No, because what is accepted by all cannot be negated without proof.

Objection: "There is no establishment of what lacks proof?" Answer: No, because "Universal Acceptance" (Sarvabhimati) itself is the proof; otherwise, all verbal transactions would be unestablished.

"I heard it, so you can know it"—otherwise (if not Apaurusheya), there would be a counter-reply, or you would have delusion, or it would be the cause of all sorrow, or one would be otherwise. And if the proof of Dharma were "composed" (Rachita), there would be the suspicion of defects like ignorance in the author. And "faultlessness" cannot be established by one's own sentence alone.

And saying "It is called Apaurusheya by someone" is equal to the spoken sentence (circular); (rather) it is established by acceptance since beginningless time. Therefore, Shruti has validity. Thus, the "Dhira" (wise one) is not deluded therein by fallacious arguments.

Alternatively, grief is regarding either soul-destruction or body-destruction. Not soul-destruction, because it is eternal—He said this in "Na tveva." Nor body-destruction—He says this in "Dehinah." Just as there is 'non-grief' (Ashoka) in the attainment of old age by the loss of the childhood-body, so too in the attainment of another body by the loss of the worn-out body.

'Even if it is so, still grief born of separation from a beloved body does indeed occur'—anticipating this doubt, He says 'dehinaḥ' etc. He who has two bodies, gross and subtle, is 'dehī' (embodied), the conscious Self. Just as for him, in this gross body, in states like childhood etc., despite the difference of body, there is oneness due to the recognition of identity 'I alone was a child, now I am old'; and difference from the bodies of childhood etc., according to the logic 'that which persists is different from those which turn away (change), like a thread from flowers'. Similarly, the attainment of another body is also the attainment of other subtle bodies (Linga Shariras), which are subtle and follow the gross body, from the gross body. The meaning is this: Just as even a single gross body is multiform due to difference in states like childhood etc., so the Linga Sharira (subtle body), though eternal (relative to gross), becomes manifold due to difference in states like god, man, animal etc. because of the difference in the living being's karma. And therefore, by the stated logic, the Self is indeed distinct from the subtle body as well, just as from the gross etc. And thus, for you, who are distinct even from the Linga (subtle body) which possesses properties like grief, even grief born of separation from the beloved is not proper. Therefore, 'tatra'—in that matter, the wise man is not deluded. Grief and delusion are based on identification; due to the abandonment of identification with the two bodies, they do not afflict the wise man. Therefore, you too become wise—this is the idea. In the previous two verses, the plural in 'gatāsūn' and 'vayam' is intended for the difference of limiting adjuncts (upādhis); but here the singular in 'dehinaḥ' is intended for the unity of the conscious Self which is the locus of adjuncts—this should be known. And so the Shruti speaks of the difference of the one Self as caused by adjuncts: 'Just as this luminous self, the Sun, being one, following the waters which are divided in many ways, is made to appear divided by the adjunct; so is this unborn Self, the Deity, in the fields (bodies).' 'In the fields'—in those of the nature of the two bodies, gross and subtle, whose characteristics will be described. And also 'One Deity hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the inner Self of all beings' (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.11). And from oneness, His all-pervasiveness is also established. By that, the Selfhood of bodies etc., which are impermanent and not all-pervading, which is accepted by others (Charvakas etc.), should be understood as refuted.

For the "Dehinah" (embodied soul)—existing in one body—when it abandons the state of "Kaumaram" (childhood) and attains states like youth, just "Yatha" (as) one does not grieve thinking "the Self is destroyed" due to a firm understanding of the Self; "Tatha" (so too), even upon attaining "Dehantara" (another body) from the present body, the "Buddhiman" (wise one) does not grieve, knowing "the Self is indeed the same stable entity." Therefore, because Selves are eternal, they are not a locus for grief.

Here, this much is to be done: For the eternal Selves, who due to subjection to beginningless Karma have come into contact with bodies appropriate to their respective actions, and who are performing scripturally ordained actions like war suited to their own Varna (caste)—without attachment to fruits—in order to be liberated from bondage through those very bodies; the contacts of senses with sense-objects, which bring pleasure and pain caused by cold, heat, etc., occur unavoidably. However, these must be endured until the completion of the scriptural duty.

He states this very meaning immediately after.

Objection: "It is true that You, being the Lord, are devoid of birth etc., but for Jivas (individual souls), birth and death are well-known." To this, He says "Dehinah" etc.

For the "Dehinah"—the Jiva identified with the body—just "Yatha" (as) in "Asmin" (this) gross body, states like childhood are based solely on the body and not on the Self itself; because even when the former state is destroyed and another state arises, there is the recognition "I am the same person." "Tatha eva" (In the exact same way), upon the destruction of this body, the attainment of another body is also based on the subtle body (Linga-deha).

But by that much, there is no destruction of the Self. Because immediately upon birth, the tendency for breastfeeding etc. is seen due to past impressions (samskaras).

Therefore, the "Dhirah"—the wise one—"Na muhyati" (is not deluded) "Tatra"—regarding those destructions and origins of the body; he does not think "The Self itself has died and been born."

Eternal-ness was stated to establish the unworthiness of grief for the Selves. Regarding that, resolving the doubt "If the Self is eternal, how do the perception and transaction of birth, death, etc. occur?" He uses an example in "Dehinah."

Explaining the intent of "Asmin" (in this), he says "Ekasmin" (In one). Instead of showing the connection of the three states to the body, it is more appropriate to show it in the Embodied (Dehi) himself; with this intent, he says "Dehe vartamanasya" (of one existing in the body). The sequence "childhood, youth, old age" implies a natural progression; stating the resultant meaning of this, he says "Vihaya" (having abandoned/left behind). Since the loss of childhood and youth can also be a cause for a specific kind of grief, to exclude that grief and to clarify the purport of the word "Yatha," he says "Atmanah" etc. The understanding that "the Self is stable/constant" even when the state of childhood ceases is the cause for the absence of grief regarding the destruction of that state; the same applies here (in death) too—this is the meaning.

Regarding "Dehantarapraptih" (attainment of another body), he points out the cause of grief known as 'abandoning the previous body'—suggested by the word 'antara' (another)—with "Dehat" (from the body).

The meaning of the word "Dhira," qualified by the context, is "Buddhiman" (wise one) who knows "The Self is stable." He connects this with what was said earlier in "Ashochyan" etc. using "Atah" (Therefore).

Thus, by the two verses, the 'Goal' (Eternal Self) and the 'Thing to be removed' (Grief/Delusion) have been suggested in order. Now, synthesizing the implied meaning of the next two verses which concern the 'Means' (Prapaka) and are present in the mind, he states the connection with "Etavat" (This much is to be done...) up to "Bandhanivrittaye" (for the cessation of bondage). This is the meaning of "Amritatvaya kalpate" (becomes fit for immortality - 2.15).

To resolve the inconsistency of pure-natured Selves being in Samsara, he says "Anadi" (beginningless Karma). The idea is that they are subject to Karma, not to undefinable Ignorance (Avidya) etc. To account for the inequality in bodies and enjoyments among Selves who are inherently extremely equal, he says "Tattatkarma" (appropriate to their respective actions).

"Dehair-bandha-nivrittaye"—meaning, for the cessation of the bondage caused by bodies. Or, the syntax is "Dehah karma kurvatam" (performing action with bodies). In that case, the intent is to emphasize that the very bodies which are binding can become useful means for liberation.

"Shastriyam"—(War is scriptural); otherwise, violation of the Lord's command (scripture) would only result in punishment—this is the sentiment.

"Svavarnochitam"—meaning, it is not better for you to abandon war etc. and beg for alms.

To qualify as a cause for immortality, he says "Anabhisamhita" (without attachment to fruit). "How can enduring things of adverse nature (pain) be a duty?"—the "unavoidability" (avarjaniyatva) indicated by the word "Tu" (But), which removes this doubt, is the reason for endurance (titiksha)—this connects to "Iti etavat atra kartavyam" (Thus, this much is to be done here).

स्मृति का यह नियम है कि अनुभवकर्त्ता तथा स्मरणकर्त्ता एक ही व्यक्ति होना चाहिये तभी किसी वस्तु का स्मरण करना संभव है। मैं आपके अनुभवों का स्मरण नहीं कर सकता और न आप मेरे अनुभवों का परन्तु हम दोनों अपनेअपने अनुभवों का स्मरण कर सकते हैं।वृद्धावस्था में हम अपने बाल्यकाल और यौवन काल का स्मरण कर सकते हैं। कौमार्य अवस्था के समाप्त होने पर युवावस्था आती है और तत्पश्चात् वृद्धावस्था। अब यह तो स्पष्ट है कि वृद्धावस्था में व्यक्ति के साथ कौमार्य और युवा दोनों ही अवस्थायें नहीं हैं फिर भी वह उन अवस्थाओं में प्राप्त अनुभवों को स्मरण कर सकता है। स्मृति के नियम से यह सिद्ध हो जाता है कि व्यक्ति में कुछ है जो तीनों अवस्थाओं में अपरिवर्तनशील है जो बालक और युवा शरीर द्वारा अनुभवों को प्राप्त करता है तथा उनका स्मरण भी करता है।इस प्रकार देखने पर यह ज्ञात होता है कि कौमार्य अवस्था की मृत्यु युवावस्था का जन्म है और युवावस्था की मृत्यु ही वृद्धावस्था का जन्म है। और फिर भी निरन्तर होने वाले इन परिवर्तनों से हमें किसी प्रकार का शोक नहीं होता बल्कि इन अवस्थाओं से गुजरते हुये असंख्य अनुभवों को प्राप्त कर हम प्रसन्न ही होते हैं।जगत् में प्रत्येक व्यक्ति के इस निजी अनुभव का दृष्टान्त के रूप में उपयोग करके श्रीकृष्ण अर्जुन को यह समझाना चाहते हैं कि बुद्धिमान पुरुष जीवात्मा के एक देह को छोड़कर अन्य शरीर में प्रवेश करने पर शोक नहीं करता।पुनर्जन्म के सिद्धान्त के पीछे छिपे इस सत्य को यह श्लोक और अधिक दृढ़ करता है। अत बुद्धिमान पुरुष के लिये मृत्यु का कोई भय नहीं रह जाता। बाल्यावस्था आदि की मृत्यु होने पर हम शोक नहीं करते क्योंकि हम जानते हैं कि हमारा अस्तित्व बना रहता है और हम पूर्व अवस्था से उच्च अवस्था को प्राप्त कर रहे हैं। उसी प्रकार एक देह विशेष को त्याग कर जीवात्मा अपनी पूर्व वासनाओं के अनुसार अन्य देह को धारण करता है। इस विषय में धीर पुरुष मोहित नहीं होता है।

Thus He states two meanings (eternality of Self and mutability of Body) with "Na hi" etc. It is not indeed that I was not, but rather I was; so too you and these kings.

If there is "worthiness of grief" when the form changes, then why is there no grieving when youth is attained from childhood? He who is "Dhira" does not grieve.

And "Dhairya" (patience/firmness) is easy for one who has no attachment/faith even in this body. Therefore, seek patience.

'Nanu ca'—Here (in this verse), is the inference made taking the perceived body as the subject (paksha), or taking the embodied self (dehi) distinct from it as the subject? Not the first, because the origin and destruction of the body being established by perception, the reason (hetu) would be 'svarūpāsiddha' (unestablished in nature) and 'kālātyayāpadiṣṭa' (contradicted by time/perception); since this is clear, it is not stated. Regarding the second, he states the defect—'dehina' (of the embodied), etc. 'Dehinaḥ' means of the embodied one; in the 'bhāva' (existence) of the self distinct from the body, this inference of eternality is possible, due to the absence of defects mentioned regarding the body-subject; but the very existence of a self distinct from the body is unestablished, due to the lack of proof. Consequently, there is 'āśrayāsiddhi' (unestablished locus). Or, let the existence of a self distinct from the body be granted, still the inference is not possible—he says 'dehina', etc. The singular in 'dehinaḥ' is not intended (literally). In the event of the meaning 'there is only one self in the former and later bodies,' this inference is possible, due to the absence of 'svarūpasiddhi' etc. (defects). But that very oneness of self in former and later bodies is unestablished due to lack of proof. And thus, how is eternality as beginninglessness established for that which has origin when the body originates and destruction when it is destroyed? Seeing the refutation of both (views), the construction should be thus—to be compatible with both meanings, the singular is used even though the plural is contextual; and 'tathā bhāvaḥ'—even though masculine is contextual, the neuter is used to grasp the general sense 'tadeva' (that very thing). 'No, he says'—is the remainder. After 'dehino'smin', the word 'iti' is added. To refute the two objections, he explains the three feet (pādas)—'yathā' (just as), etc. Here 'dehī'—its 'īkṣitā' (seer)—is established; thus is the establishment of the self distinct from the body. 'Tat' refers to childhood etc. It is a compound due to the 'yājakādi' group. Or it is a compound of the accusative with the 'tṛn' affix. 'Vision' (experience) regarding childhood etc. does indeed exist. And vision is not possible without a seer. And he (the seer) is established as 'dehī' (distinct from the body) by the 'parishesha' proof (elimination) to be described. Here the mention of 'childhood etc.' is not intended (restrictive), because the knower is established by knowledge alone. And the word 'deha' exists in the body along with senses etc.; and in the verse, by the objects 'childhood, youth, old age,' the 'vision of the possessor' (viṣayīkṣaṇa) is implied; that belongs to the 'dehin'—the one distinct from the body—this is said. The whole sentence 'yathā' etc., and the three feet in the verse, are the proof for the oneness of the self even when bodies differ. The difference of bodies possessing childhood etc.—this is the meaning. The embodied one is one alone—this is the meaning. 'Tadīkṣitā'—'I who was possessing a child body, that same I am now possessing a youth body'—such is the recognition; this is the meaning. 'Even in the attainment of another body'—meaning even in the attainment of many bodies. One embodied self alone is established—this continues. 'Due to being a seer'—because the connection with the previous body is established from the desire for food etc. in a newborn infant—this is the idea. Thus, having established the self's distinctness from the body and its oneness despite body differences, 'the wise man is not deluded therein' is said; (Objection): Is that (statement) useless? Anticipating this—'Whatever other delusions exist in this matter should be removed by the wise man himself'—having this meaning, it is not useless; with this intention, to show that, he begins the subsequent section.

Objection: "Lokayatikas (Materialists) say that 'the body alone qualified by consciousness is the Self.' And the validity of direct perceptions like 'I am fat', 'I am fair', 'I go' cannot be negated. So how is the distinction of the Self from the body established? And even if there is distinction, how is it devoid of birth and destruction? For from the perception 'Devadatta is born', 'Devadatta is dead', the birth and destruction of the Self along with the body is reasonable?" Answer: To this, He says "Dehinah."

"Dehah" (Bodies)—past, future, and present, existing in the universe—belong to Him ("Asya santi"), therefore He is "Dehi." Since the One (Self) is Vibhu (all-pervading), He is connected to all bodies, and since activity is explicable everywhere (by one Self), there is no proof for a distinction of Selves per body—to indicate this, the singular number is used. The plural "We all" in the previous verse was due to the continuity of the distinction of bodies mentioned earlier, not with the intention of distinction in the Self; so there is no fault.

For that one existing "Dehi," just as "Asmin" (in this) present body, the three states of childhood, youth, and old age are mutually contradictory, yet there is no distinction of the Self based on their distinction. Because there is a firmer recognition: "The same I who experienced parents in childhood, am experiencing great-grandchildren in old age." For impressions (samskaras) located in one entity cannot generate memory (anusandhana) in another. "Tatha" (So too)—in the same manner, for the unmodified existing Self, there is "Dehantara-prapti"—attainment of a body extremely different from this one. In dreams and in the powers of Yoga (Kayavyuha), even when there is awareness of different bodies, the recognition "I am the very same" persists.

If the body alone were the Self, then when the body changes due to childhood etc., there would be no connecting memory (pratisandhana). If it is argued that despite the extreme difference in states like childhood, the "body" possessing the states is one based on the maxim "Identity persists as long as recognition lasts"; then still, in dreams and Yoga-powers where body-properties differ, there would be no connecting memory (but there is); so both are examples.

Therefore, like the idea of water in a mirage, the idea "I am fat" etc. must be accepted as erroneous (bhrama), because the contradiction/sublation (badha) is equal in both cases. This will be expanded in "Na jayate" (2.20) etc.

By this, the view that "The Self, distinct from the body, is born and destroyed along with the body" is also refuted. Because while recognition is possible amidst change of states (if the substrate remains), recognition would be impossible if the substrate "body" (and Self with it) were destroyed.

Alternatively (Second interpretation): Just as for the unmodified one Self, there is the attainment of states like childhood, "Tatha" (so too) upon departure from this body, there is "Dehantara-prapti." "Tatra" (There/In that case), even in the absence of the explicit recognition "I am the same," the occurrence of joy, grief, fear etc. in a newborn is seen to be born of past impressions. Otherwise, the tendency for breastfeeding etc. would not happen. For that tendency is accepted to be born of the knowledge that it is a "means to a desired end" (ishtasadhanata) or born of Adrishta (unseen potency) alone. Thus, the oneness of the Self in previous and subsequent bodies is established. Otherwise, there would be the contingency of "Krita-nasha" (destruction of performed actions without fruit) and "Akrita-abhyagama" (accrual of fruit for unperformed actions)—this is detailed elsewhere.

Alternatively (Third interpretation): Just as for you, the one "Dehi," there is no difference (in Self) during the sequential origin and destruction of bodily states, due to eternality; "Tatha" (so too) the simultaneous attainment of all other bodies is also of you, the one Self, because you are "Vibhu" (all-pervading). If of medium size (body-size), it would have parts and thus could not be eternal; if atomic (anu), it could not experience pleasure etc. pervading the whole body; since Vibhutva (all-pervasiveness) is certain, and effects are seen everywhere, the certain meaning is "You are the one Self in all bodies."

"Tatra evam sati"—In such a situation—you are "Muhyasi" (deluded) due to impatience/lack of discrimination caused by imagining the distinction of slayer and slain; but the "Dhirah"—the knower—"Na muhyati," because of the absence of the perception of duality like "I am their slayer, these are to be slain by me." Also (the inference is): All bodies under debate have one experiencer, because they are bodies, like your body. The Shruti also says: "One God hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the inner Self of all beings," etc.

By this, the views—"Body alone is Self" (Charvaka); "Senses, Mind, Prana are Self" (Charvaka sect); "Momentary Consciousness" (Bauddha); "Distinct from body but stable and body-sized" (Digambara); "Eternal Atom, since medium size cannot be eternal" (Vaiseshika sect)—all are refuted, by establishing Eternality and All-pervasiveness.

Objection: "It is true that we shall all be in one place; but I grieve due to the doubt whether the next supernatural body will be like this one or not?" In response to this, He says "Dehinah" etc.

For the "Dehinah"—the Jiva—just "Yatha" (as) in "Asmin" (this) body, the three states of childhood, youth, and old age occur due to Time; "Tatha" (so too) by the will of the Lord, for the devotee of the Lord (Bhagavadiya), there is "Dehantara-prapti"—the attainment of a second, supernatural body.

The "Dhirah"—the devotee—"Na muhyati" (is not deluded) "Tatra"—regarding the attainment of that body.

One who possesses a body (Deha) is "Dehi." For that "Dehinah"—the embodied Self—just "Yatha" (as/in the manner that) in "Asmin" (this present) body, "Kaumaram" (childhood/state of a boy), "Yauvanam" (youth/middle state), and "Jara" (loss of age/state of decay)—these three states are mutually distinct. Upon the destruction of the first state, there is no destruction of the Self; nor is there birth of the Self upon the origin of the second state. What then? It is seen that the unchanging Self alone attains the second and third states. "Tatha" (So too/In that very way), "Dehantara" is a body other than the (present) body; the attainment of that is "Dehantara-prapti"; meaning, it is of the unchanging Self alone. The "Dhirah"—the wise one—"Tatra" (in that situation, it being so)—"Na muhyati"—does not fall into delusion.

Although for one who knows that the Self is eternal, delusion caused by the destruction of the Self is not possible; still, worldly delusion caused by the contact with cold, heat, pleasure, and pain is seen. Delusion is caused by separation from pleasure, and grief is caused by contact with pain. Anticipating this argument from Arjuna, the Lord speaks—

Having thus established the unworthiness of grief for the Selves by their non-origination, He now states the unworthiness of grief regarding the body, Self, etc. with "Dehinah."

By a worldly example: just as in this gross body the attainment of states like childhood occurs, so is the attainment of another body certain for the Selves; therefore, the "Dhira" (wise one) "Na muhyati" (is not deluded)—meaning, he does not grieve over it.

देहिनः of the embodied (soul)? अस्मिन् in this? यथा as? देहे in body? कौमारम् childhood? यौवनम् youth? जरा old age? तथा so also? देहान्तरप्राप्तिः the attaining of another body? धीरः the firm? तत्र thereat? न not? मुह्यति grieves.Commentary -- Just as there is no interruption in the passing of childhood into youth and youth into old age in this body? so also there is no interruption by death in the continuity of the ego. The Self is not dead at the termination of the stage? viz.? childhood. It is certainly not born again at the beginning of the second stage? viz.? youth. Just as the Self passes unchanged from childhood to youth and from yourth to old age? so also the Self passes unchanged from one body into,another. Therefore? the wise man is not at all distressed about it.

As to that, to show how the Self is eternal, the Lord cites an illustration by saying,'৷৷.of the embodied,' etc. Yatha, as are, the manner in which; kaumaram, boyhood; yauvanam, youth, middle age; and jara, decrepitude, advance of age; dehinah, to an embodied being, to one who possesses a body (deha), to the Self possessing a body; asmin, in this, present; dehe, body . These three states are mutually distinct. On these, when the first state gets destroyed the Self does not get destroyed; when the second state comes into being It is not born. What then? It is seen that the Self, which verily remains unchanged, acires the second and third states. Tatha, similar, indeed; is Its, the unchanging Self's dehantarapraptih, acisition of another body, a body different from the present one. This is the meaning. Tatra, this being so; dhirah, an intelligent person; na, does not; muhyati, get deluded.

As the self is eternal, one does not grieve, thinking that the self is lost, when an embodied self living in a body gives up the state of childhood and attains youth and other states. Similarly, the wise men, knowing that the self is eternal, do not grieve, when the self attains a body different from the present body. Hence the selves, being eternal, are not fit objects for grief.
This much has to be done here; the eternal selves because of Their being subject ot beginningless Karma become endowed with bodies suited to Their Karmas. To get rid of this bondage (of bodies), embodied beings perform duties like war appropriate to their stations in life with the help of the same bodies in an attitude of detachment from the fruits as prescribed by the scripture. Even to such aspirants, contacts with sense-objects give pleasure and pain, arising from cold, heat and such other things. But these experiences are to be endured till the acts enjoined in the scriptures come to an end.
The Lord explains the significance immediately afterwards: