Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 26

व्याख्या-- 'अथ चैनं ৷৷. शोचितुमर्हसि'-- भगवान् यहाँ पक्षान्तररमें 'अथ च' और 'मन्यसे' पद देकर कहते हैं कि यद्यपि सिद्धान्तकी और सच्ची बात यही है कि देही किसी भी कालमें जन्मने-मरनेवाला नहीं है (गीता 2। 20), तथापि अगर तुम सिद्धान्तसे बिलकुल विरुद्ध बात भी मान लो कि देही नित्य जन्मनेवाला और नित्य मरनेवाला है, तो भी तुम्हें शोक नहीं होना चाहिये। कारण कि जो जन्मेगा, वह मरेगा ही और जो मरेगा, वह जन्मेगा ही--इस नियमको कोई टाल नहीं सकता।
अगर बीजको पृथ्वीमें बो दिया जाय, तो वह फूलकर अङ्कुर दे देता है और वही अङ्कुर क्रमशः बढ़कर वृक्षरूप हो जाता है। इसमें सूक्ष्म दृष्टिसे देखा जाय कि क्या वह बीज एक क्षण भी एकरूपसे रहा? पृथ्वीमें वह पहले अपने कठोररूपको छोड़कर कोमलरूपमें हो गया, फिर कोमल-रूपको छोड़कर अङ्कुररूपमें हो गया, इसके बाद अङ्कुरूपको छोड़कर वृक्षरूपमें हो गया और अन्तमें आयु समाप्त होनेपर वह सूख गया। इस तरह बीज एक क्षण भी एकरूपसे नहीं रहा, प्रत्युत प्रतिक्षण बदलता रहा। अगर बीज एक क्षण भी एकरूपसे रहता, तो वृक्षके सूखनेतककी क्रिया कैसे होती? उसने पहले रूपको छोड़ा--यह उसका मरना हुआ, और दूसरे रूपको धारण किया-- यह उसका जन्मना हुआ। इस तरह वह प्रतिक्षण ही जन्मता-मरता रहा। बीजकी ही तरह यह शरीर है। बहुत सूक्ष्मरूपसे वीर्यका जन्तु रजके साथ मिला। वह बढ़ते-बढ़ते बच्चेके रूपमें हो गया और फिर जन्म गया। जन्मके बाद वह बढ़ा, फिर घटा और अन्तमें मर गया। इस तरह शरीर एक क्षण भी एकरूपसे न रहकर बदलता रहा अर्थात् प्रतिक्षण जन्मता-मरता रहा।
भगवान् कहते हैं कि अगर तुम शरीरकी तरह शरीरीको भी नित्य जन्मने-मरनेवाला मान लो, तो भी यह शोकका विषय नहीं हो सकता।

औपचारिक रूपसे आत्माकी अनित्यता स्वीकार करके यह कहते हैं अथ च ये दोनों अव्यय औपचारिक स्वीकृतिके बोधक हैं। यदि तू इस आत्माको सदा जन्मनेवाला अर्थात् लोकप्रसिद्धिके अनुसार अनेक शरीरोंकी प्रत्येक उत्पत्तिके साथसाथ उत्पन्न हुआ माने तथा उनके प्रत्येक विनाशके साथसाथ सदा नष्ट हुआ माने। तो भी अर्थात् ऐसे नित्य जन्मने और नित्य मरनेवाले आत्माके निमित्त भी हे महाबाहो तुझे इस प्रकार शोक करना उचित नहीं है क्योंकि जन्मनेवालेका मरण और मरनेवालेका जन्म यह दोनों अवश्य ही होनेवाले हैं।

Anticipating the objection that 'Since the eternalness of the Self has already been established, the subsequent verse is inappropriate (inconsistent),' [the Commentator] says 'Atmanah' (Of the Self...). The word split here is 'anityatvam' (non-eternalness). This refers to the opinion of the Shakyas (Buddhists) or the Lokayatas (Materialists).

Since the listener, Arjuna, even after hearing the previously stated true nature of the Self, has not attained certainty regarding it, there is a suspicion that he might accept one of the other two views; for that purpose, the two particles ('atha' and 'cha') are used—thus [the Commentator] states with 'atha cha' (and if).

Regarding the Self under discussion, characterized by eternalness etc., the notion of it being born again and again is impossible due to the lack of proof; thus he says 'loka...' (referring to ordinary usage/belief).

Anticipating the doubt that 'In the insistence on constant birth, the insistence on repeated death would be contradictory,' he says 'tatha' (similarly/or).

Having restated the opponent's view and accepted it [for argument's sake], he states that his (Arjuna's) grief—expressed in 'Alas, we are resolved to commit a great sin'—has no scope; thus he says 'tathapi' (even then).

Having thus shown the type of grief visible in Arjuna, he states the reason for its impropriety with 'janmavatah' (for the born...) etc.

'For one who is born, destruction is inevitable; and for one destroyed, birth is inevitable'—these two are mutually pervasive; this is the construction.

Out of boldness (argumentative concession), even after accepting the doctrine of those outside the Vedas regarding the eternalness of the Self, He dispels grief with the verse beginning with 'Atha' (Now if). The word 'Atha' is for the purpose of accepting an alternative view. If you consider this [Self], from the worldly perspective, regarding the production of various bodies, as 'born, born' [repeatedly born], and similarly consider its destruction as 'constant' (nityam). This commentary is an 'upalakshana' (implication) for other views stated by atheists as well.

Or rather, the elaboration of other opinions is not intended here due to the lack of purpose; therefore, the intended implied meaning is: 'Even if the gross view [identifying Self with body] is accepted, grief should not be felt; how much less so if the Vedic view is accepted.'

Addressing him as 'Mahabaho' (O Mighty-armed), He implies: 'Make the greatness of your arms meaningful by not grieving.'

(Objection)—'Let the eternalness of the Self be so [as described]; nevertheless, birth and death, which are of the nature of connection and separation with the body, certainly exist'—to this, He says 'atha cha' (and if) etc.

Thus, it was stated that grief is not proper from the viewpoint of Reality (Tattva). Now, He states that grief is not proper even from the viewpoint of the common man, with 'atha cha' (and if).

'Nityam' means born 'regularly/invariably' [by natural laws]—hence 'nitya-jatam' (constantly born); this is the Charvaka (Materialist) view.
'Nityam' means born 'always' (at every moment); this is the view of the Momentary Idealists (Kshanika-vijnana-vadins/Buddhists).
Being 'Eternal' (Nitya), yet 'born' due to connection with a new body and senses; this is the view of the Logicians (Tarkikas), etc.

Similarly, [these interpretations] should be applied to 'or you think of him as constantly dead' (nityam va manyase mritam). In all three views, grief is not proper. By 'Mahabaho' (O Mighty-armed), He encourages him for war.

If you think of this Self as the 'body' alone—constantly born and constantly dying—and not as distinct from the body possessing the described characteristics;

even then, you ought not to grieve excessively in this way. Because, for the body, which is of the nature of modification, origin and destruction are inevitable.

Thus, it has been stated that grief should not be performed because of the absence of birth and destruction for the Self. Now, He states that even accepting the birth of the Self along with the body and destruction along with its destruction, grief should not be performed, using 'atha cha' (and if).

'Atha cha'—And if, even though you think this Self is 'nityam'—meaning always—born when the respective bodies are born, and similarly dead when that body dies—since merits and sins and their fruits, birth and death, accrue to the Self—even then, you ought not to grieve.

Thus, the absence of a cause for grief was stated assuming the Self is distinct from the body. Now, it is stated that even in the view of 'Dehatmavada' (body is Self) according to the atheist perspective, there is no cause for grief, through the three verses beginning with 'atha cha'.

'Atha'—This is for the commencement of another view, or for a question, or for acceptance. The word 'va' (implied or read variously) is also for the conjunction of the two adjectives.

'Nityajatam nityamritam'—meaning one whose origin and destruction are inevitable/constant. He will elaborate on this meaning in the next verse. Indeed, birth and death are not possible for an eternal entity. Nor can the nature of the action of birth and death be qualified by 'eternalness' [in the sense of immutability]. To dispel the delusion that the separated word 'nitya' is an adjective [qualifying the Self as eternal], 'nityamritam' is stated as a compound word, just like 'nityajatam'.

'Deham' (Body)—This is stated as the implied result derived from the force of the adjectives, etc. 'Eva' (Alone/Indeed)—This is the meaning of the word 'cha'. He states the result of this emphasis (avadharana) with 'na deha...' (not distinct from the body).

Previously, it was said that due to the absence of destruction of the Self, the occasion for grief does not exist at all; now, the intention behind the word 'evam' (thus) is: even if the destruction of the Self—considered as the body—occurs, since it is unavoidable, you, O Mighty-armed one, ought not to grieve excessively.

Alternatively, previously, by accepting the Self as distinct from the body, excessive grief might have been reasonable due to fear of the other world, etc.; but now [in the materialist view], since death is like a liberator from Samsara, O Mighty-armed, how can there be excessive grief in a place that should be a source of excessive joy?—This is the purport.

'Tvam Mahabaho' (You, O Mighty-armed)—The implication is that for you, a warrior, anxiety regarding your own or others' death is not proper.

Since a proposition expects a reason, He extracts and states the reason—either located in the next verse or suggested by the two adjectives [here]—with 'parinama...' (of the nature of modification...).

और 27 इन दो श्लोकों में भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण ने भौतिकवादी विचारकों का दृष्टिकोण केवल तर्क के लिए प्रस्तुत किया है। इस मत के अनुसार केवल प्रत्यक्ष प्रमाण ही ज्ञान का साधन है अर्थात् इन्द्रियों को जो ज्ञात है केवल वही सत्य है। इस प्रकार मानने पर उन्हें यह स्वीकार करना पड़ता है कि जीवन असंख्य जन्म और मृत्युओं की एक धारा या प्रवाह है। वस्तुयें निरन्तर उत्पन्न और नष्ट होती हैं और उनके मत के अनुसार यही जीवन है। श्रीकृष्ण कहते हैं कि यदि जन्ममृत्यु का यह निरन्तर प्रवाह ही जीवन हो तब भी हे शक्तिशाली अर्जुन तुमको शोक नहीं करना चाहिये। क्योंकि

Regarding 'Nainam' (This... not), etc. For this [Self], the cause of destruction—weapons, etc.—does nothing (is ineffective). Because It is of the nature of pure Consciousness alone, supportless (independent), partless, and independent; therefore, it is impossible to destroy It through the sequence of transformation into another nature, destruction of the substratum, separation of parts, or the emergence of an opposing force.

Nor is its migration to another body unprecedented (apurva). Even while connected to a body, It constantly goes to another body—meaning, It connects with it. This is because the body does not remain stable even for a single moment.

Having known It to be of such nature, you ought not to grieve for this Self.

Objection: 'Having established the eternalness of the Self by removing all doubts and concluded with "Therefore...", why is "Atha cha" (And if) said again?' Regarding this, with the intention that 'having accepted the eternalness of the Self, this doubt of grief arises in another way,' [Acharya Madhva] says 'Astvevam' (Let it be so...).

'And in war, death is certain, and suffering caused by birth and death will befall my people, so the grief is mine alone'—this is the remainder of the doubt. By this, the first half [of the verse] is also explained. Therefore, it is stated [in the commentary]: 'Birth and death which are of the nature of connection and separation of the body.' Otherwise, he would have said simply 'connection and separation of the body' or simply 'birth and death'.

By saying 'Sta eva' (they do exist), it is stated that the word 'nitya' [in the verse] is in the sense of emphasis (certainty). By saying 'Let the eternalness of the Self be so,' the explanation of the Mayavadins (Advaitins)—that 'this is stated by accepting the non-eternalness of the Self'—is refuted.

Because of the contradiction with the subsequent statement 'For the dead, birth is certain...' (Gita 2.27), and also because of the contradiction with 'Unmanifest...' (Gita 2.28).

Thus, the fact that the Self does not warrant grief due to its immutability has been stated. Now, even by accepting its mutability, the Lord establishes the impropriety of grief through two verses.

Regarding this: The Self is of the nature of knowledge and perishes every moment—so say the Saugatas (Buddhists). The body alone is the Self; though stable, it undergoes modification every moment, is born, and dies; this is established by perception—so say the Lokayatikas (Charvakas). Even being distinct from the body, it is born and dies along with the body alone—so say others. It is born at the beginning of creation like Space (Akasha), and even while body differences occur, it continues, lasting until the Kalpa, and dies at Dissolution (Pralaya)—so say others. The Self is indeed eternal, but is born and dies—so say the Tarkikas (Logicians).

According to them: 'Pretyabhava' (rebirth) is birth, which is the connection with a new body and senses. Similarly, death is the separation from the former body and senses. And both of these, being caused by Dharma (merit) and Adharma (demerit), are primary [attributes] of the Eternal [Self] which is the substratum [of Dharma/Adharma]. If they were attributes of the non-eternal [body], there would be the fallacy of 'loss of earned karma' and 'accrual of unearned karma' (krita-hani-akrita-abhyagama), making the locus of Dharma/Adharma illogical; thus birth and death [of the body] are not primary—so they say. For the eternal Self too, birth is through the birth of the body, just like [the birth of enclosed space] through the birth of the ear-cavity, and death is through its destruction; both are conditional (aupadhika) and indeed secondary—so say others.

Among these, He negates the worthiness of grief for the Self even in the 'view of non-eternalness' using 'Atha' (Now if) to introduce an alternative view. 'Cha' implies 'api' (even). 'If, due to the difficulty in understanding the Reality of the Self, being unable to grasp it despite repeated hearing, and thus not accepting the view stated by Me, you accept an alternative view; and there too, relying on the view of non-eternalness, if you consider this Self as "constantly born" or "constantly dead".

The word 'va' is in the sense of 'cha' (and). In the view of momentariness, 'nityam' means 'every moment'; in the other views, due to inevitability, 'nityam' means 'niyatam' (invariably/certainly)—if you imagine thus based on the worldly perception 'this is born, this is dead'. 'Even then, O Mighty-armed'—meaning O Foremost among men; this is with sarcasm. Or, 'By accepting a false doctrine, such a distorted vision is not possible in you'—this is with compassion.

Thus, regarding your grief expressed as 'Alas, we are resolved to commit a great sin,' etc.—to perform such 'grieving' (anusochana), even being such (a holder of non-eternal views) yourself, you are not 'fit' (arhasi). Because in the view of momentariness, in the view of the body as Self, and in the view of birth/destruction along with the body—since there is no future birth, the fear of sin is impossible. And you are grieving indeed due to the fear of sin; and that is not possible in such a philosophy—this is the meaning. In the view of momentariness, even 'seen' (worldly) suffering is not possible, because there is no [enduring] observer of the destruction of kinsmen—this is an additional point. In the alternative view, the restrictive particle 'eva' (in the translation of 'you ought not to grieve') is to allow for grief caused by 'seen suffering' (loss of kin). Meaning, even if grief caused by seen suffering is possible, grief caused by 'unseen suffering' (sin/hell) is essentially improper—this is the meaning of the first verse.

Having thus stated the doctrine of the wise, He now says that you ought not to grieve even according to the doctrine of the ignorant, with the verse beginning with 'atha cha' (and if). 'Atha cha' means by an alternative view.

If you consider this [Self] as 'constantly born'—meaning born along with the respective bodies—or dead when that [body] dies; even then, you ought not to grieve for It. Because you are 'Mighty-armed' (Mahabahu).

Here, the meaning is this: The cognition of birth and death regarding this eternal [Self] occurs only through superimposition on the body (dehadhyasa). In that case (if the body is the Self), where is the destruction of your arm-strength, etc.? (Meaning: As a mighty-armed warrior identified with the body, your strength is a present reality; death is merely a natural end, so grief is misplaced).

'Atha cha' (And if)—this is used in the sense of admission (of an argument).

If you think of this Self under discussion as 'constantly born'—according to common belief, thinking 'it is born, it is born' with the origin of every body; and similarly, if you think of it as 'constantly' (always) dead—thinking 'it is dead, it is dead' with the destruction of every respective body; 'tathapi'—meaning even if the Self were of such nature—O Mighty-armed, you ought not to grieve in this way.

(Because) for one who is born, destruction is inevitable, and for one destroyed, birth is inevitable.

And such being the case...

'Atha' (And if)—this refers to an alternative view.

Taking your stand in the opinion of the Lokayatikas (Materialists), if you consider the Self to be 'nityam'—meaning constantly (always) born and dead; even then, you ought not to grieve.

अथ now? च and? एनम् this (Self)? नित्यजातम् constantly born? नित्यम् constantly? वा or? मन्यसे thinkest? मृतम् dead? तथापि even then? त्वम् thou? महाबाहो mightyarmed? न not? एवम् thus? शोचितुम् to grieve? अर्हसि (thou) oughtest.Commentary Lord Krishna here? for the sake of argument? takes up the popular supposition. Granting that the Self is again and again born whenever a body comes into being? and again and again dies whenever the body dies? O mightyarmed (O Arjuna of great valour and strength)? thou shouldst not grieve thus? because birth is inevitable to want is dead and death is inevitable to what is born. This is the inexorable or unrelenting Law of Nature.

This (verse), 'On the other hand,' etc., is uttered assuming that the Self is transient. Atha ca, on the other hand, if ( conveys the sense of assumption ); following ordinary experience, manyase, you think; enam, this One, the Self under discussion; is nityajatam, born continually, becomes born with the birth of each of the numerous bodies; va, or; nityam, constantly; mrtam, dies, along with the death of each of these (bodies); tatha api, even then, even if the Self be of that nature; tvam, you; maha-baho, O mighty-armed one; na arhasi, ought not; socitum, to grieve; evam, thus, since that which is subject to birth will die, and that which is subject to death will be born; these two are inevitable.

Besides, if you consider this self as identical with the body, which is constantly born and constantly dies - which is nothing other than these characteristics of the body mentioned above -, even then it does not become you to feel grief; because, birth and death are inevitable for the body, whose nature is modification.