Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 28

व्याख्या-- 'अव्यक्तादीनि भूतानि'-- देखने, सुनने और समझनेमें आनेवाले जितने भी प्राणी (शरीर आदि) हैं, वे सब-के-सब जन्मसे पहले अप्रकट थे अर्थात् दीखते नहीं थे।
'अव्यक्तनिधनान्येव'-- ये सभी प्राणी मरनेके बाद अप्रकट हो जायँगे अर्थात् इनका नाश होनेपर ये सभी 'नहीं' में चले जायँगे, दीखेंगे नहीं।
'व्यक्तमध्यानि'-- ये सभी प्राणी बीचमें अर्थात् जन्मके बाद और मृत्युके पहले प्रकट दिखायी देते हैं। जैसे सोनेसे पहले भी स्वप्न नहीं था और जगनेपर भी स्वप्न नहीं रहा, ऐसे ही इन प्राणियोंके शरीरोंका पहले भी अभाव था और पीछे भी अभाव रहेगा। परन्तु बीचमें भावरूपसे दीखते हुए भी वास्तवमें इनका प्रतिक्षण अभाव हो रहा है।
'तत्र का परिदेवना'-- जो आदि और अन्तमें नहीं होता, वह बीचमें भी नहीं होता है--यह सिद्धान्त है (टिप्पणी प0 68) । सभी प्राणियोंके शरीर पहले नहीं थे और पीछे नहीं रहेंगे; अतः वास्तवमें वे बीचमें भी नहीं हैं। परन्तु यह शरीरी पहले भी था और पीछे भी रहेगा; अतः वह बीच में भी रहेगा ही। निष्कर्ष यह निकला कि शरीरोंका सदा अभाव है और शरीरीका कभी भी अभाव नहीं है। इसलिये इन दोनोंके लिये शोक नहीं हो सकता।

कार्यकरणके संघातरूप ही प्राणियोंको माने तो उनके उद्देश्यसे भी शोक करना उचित नहीं है क्योंकि अव्यक्त यानी न दीखना उपलब्ध न होना ही जिनकी आदि है ऐसे ये कार्यकरणके संघातरूप पुत्र मित्र आदि समस्त भूत अव्यक्तादि हैं अर्थात् जन्मसे पहले ये सब अदृश्य थे। उत्पन्न होकर मरणसे पहलेपहल बीचमें व्यक्त हैं दृश्य हैं। और पुनः अव्यक्तनिधन हैं अदृश्य होना ही जिनका निधन यानी मरण है उनको अव्यक्तनिधन कहते हैं अभिप्राय यह कि मरनेके बाद भी ये सब अदृश्य हो ही जाते हैं। ऐसे ही कहा भी है कि यह भूतसंघात अदर्शनसे आया और पुनः अदृश्य हो गया। न वह तेरा है और न तू उसका है व्यर्थ ही शोक किस लिये सुतरां इनके विषयमें अर्थात् बिना हुए ही दीखने और नष्ट होनेवाले भ्रान्तिरूप भूतोंके विषयमें चिन्ता ही क्या है रोनापीटना भी किस लिये है।

Anticipating the doubt—'Even if the performance of grief regarding the Self is improper, regarding the beings which are aggregates of elements, its performance might be proper?'—[the Commentator] says 'karya...' (aggregates of effect and instrument...). He states that the immediately following verse is the reason for that [impropriety], using 'yatah' (since).

He excludes the function of mere 'ocular perception' with 'anupalabdhi' (non-perception). Indeed, the beings in the form of the aforementioned aggregates are not perceived prior to origin; therefore, they bear that designation (unmanifest)—this is the meaning.

'What is that "middle" of theirs which is accepted as manifest?'—To this, he says 'utpannani' (produced ones...). The 'empirical existence' (vyavaharika sattva) that exists after origin and before death is their 'middle', and it is called 'manifest' (vyakta). Thinking that it is logical for dissolution to follow [the pattern of] birth, he states the purport [of avyakta-nidhanani] with 'maranat' (after death...).

He cites Puranic agreement on the stated meaning with 'tatha cha' (and similarly...). He explains the meaning of 'tatra' (there/in that matter) with 'adrishta...' (unseen...). Those which were previously unseen, became seen, and those very same ones became lost again; thus, being objects of delusion and revolving like a 'water-wheel' (ghatika-yantra), there is no room for 'lamentation'—which is the cause/expression of grief—regarding them; this is the meaning.

Objection: 'Even given the eternality of the Self, I grieve for the beings who are of the nature of the aggregate of body and senses (kārya-karaṇa-saṅghāta).' If this is said, to that He says 'avyaktādīni' (unmanifest beginning), etc. Those whose 'ādi' (beginning) before origin is 'avyakta'—non-perception—i.e., the beings who are aggregates of body and senses like sons, friends, etc.; and those whose death, the end, is unmanifest; what 'paridevanā' (lamentation), what grief is there regarding them? Indeed, no one grieves regarding shell-silver; this is the idea. And so it is said: 'He has come from the unseen, and gone again to the unseen. He is not yours, nor are you his; what is this vain lamentation?' Objection: 'Avyakta' means the Undifferentiated (Prakriti); 'bhūtāni' means ether etc.; 'vyakta' is that which is manifested by name and form—why was this verse not explained by the Acharyas with the intention of the Great Elements (Mahābhūtas) like ether etc.? If this is asked—(Answer): Because of the contradiction with the remainder of the sentence 'What lamentation is there?' (since one does not lament for elements). And because of the non-attainment of unity of meaning with statements like 'Come from the unseen' etc., and with the word 'bhūta' denoting the aggregate of body and senses situated in the conclusion 'Therefore all beings.' Understand this. Indicating that just as Bharata and others came into being from the unmanifest and went to dissolution in the unmanifest alone, so is this—He says 'Bhārata' (O descendant of Bharata).

He clarifies that very same point with 'avyaktadini' (unmanifest in the beginning...), etc.

'Let there be unworthiness of grief for the Self; still, grief born of the destruction of the beloved body does indeed occur'—anticipating this doubt, He establishes the falsity of the body etc. along with its cause with 'avyaktādīni' (unmanifest beginning), etc. 'Beings' means ether etc., and their modifications like viviparous creatures etc. Not manifest is 'Unmanifest'—Ignorance (Ajnana)—which is the 'ādi' (beginning) of whom, they are such. 'Vyakta' (Manifest)—clear—is the middle of whom, meaning the state starting from origin up to before death. In the 'Unmanifest' alone is the death, the dissolution, of whom. The meaning is this: Ignorance, the cause of the rope-snake etc., is not manifest like the rope or like the snake. And when examined, it does not come into the path of vision. Therefore, it is unmanifest. The snake born from that dissolves in that (ignorance) alone, not in the rope. Similarly, the beginning and end of beings imagined in the Self is unmanifest indeed. By that, according to the logic 'That which is not in the beginning and in the end, is so (non-existent) even in the present,' even though appearing in the middle, they are indeed unreal like the rope-snake. In such a matter, regarding that subject, what is the lamentation or what is the wailing? Indeed, no knower of truth wails thinking 'the desert-mirage lake is destroyed.' Therefore, intending the creation of beings to be simultaneous with perception like rope-snakes etc., the dissolution and origin of the world in sleep and waking are recited in the Kaushitaki Brahmana. 'When he sleeps, then speech merges in him with all names, the eye merges with all forms, the ear merges with all sounds, the mind merges with all thoughts; when he wakes up, then from this Self all Pranas proceed to their respective abodes, from Pranas the Devas, from Devas the worlds'—thus. 'Pranas' are senses like the eye etc. 'Devas' are their favorers, Sun etc. 'Lokas' are forms etc. Objection: Here and elsewhere, the Self alone is said to be the place of dissolution and origin of all beings, not another. So how is it said that the 'Unmanifest' is their place of dissolution and origin? (Answer): True. The designation of suchness in Brahman is due to being the support of ignorance, not in reality. For there is no state of being the place of dissolution and origin of effects for the changeless immutable, like (it is for) clay. As stated: 'The material cause of this magic-show of duality is Ignorance; relying on that, Brahman is called the cause.' Thus.

Beings such as humans are indeed existing substances; their prior states were unperceived, their middle states like 'human-hood' are perceived, and their subsequent states are unperceived; they abide in their own respective natures. Thus, there is no cause for lamentation regarding them.

Having stated that there is no cause for grief even in the doctrine that the body is the Self, He says [in the next verse] that regarding the Self, which is distinct from the body and of a wondrous nature, one who sees, speaks, hears, and attains conviction about the Self through hearing is rare.

Moreover, having considered the nature of bodies etc., regarding the birth and death of the Self conditioned by them, grief should not be done—He says 'avyaktādīni' (unmanifest beginning), etc. 'Avyakta' is Pradhana (unmanifest matter); that alone is the 'ādi'—previous form—of whom, they are 'avyaktādīni' beings, i.e., bodies; because origin is only of those already existing in the form of the cause. Similarly, 'vyakta'—manifested—is the 'middle'—characterized by the state between birth and death—of whom. In the 'avyakta' is the death, dissolution, of whom. These are of such nature indeed; 'tatra'—regarding them—what is the lamentation, what is the wailing caused by grief? Grief is not proper, like for one awakened regarding objects seen in a dream—this is the meaning.

Thus, the impropriety of grief was stated due to 'unavoidability' (in the previous verse). Now, the impropriety of grief is stated because those respective objects have a fixed nature, and because they attain a state of 'non-perception' (anupalabdhi) in their prior and posterior phases, which renders them incapable of being distinguished as either pleasurable or painful—through [the verse] 'avyaktadini'.

To indicate that the word 'bhuta' refers to the 'body' here, [Ramanuja] stated 'manushyadi' (humans, etc.). To dispel the delusion that words like 'avyakta' and 'vyakta' refer to specific states of Prakriti [as in Sankhya] or to the 'Sat-Brahman' mentioned by Yadavaprakasha, and to inform that such meanings are not useful in the present context, [Ramanuja] explained them as 'anupalabdha' (unperceived), etc.

Indeed, it is said elsewhere too: 'He has come here from the unseen, and has gone again to the unseen. He is not yours, nor are you his; why do you grieve in vain?' (Mahabharata 11.2.13).

'Sveshu svabhaveshu vartante' (They abide in their own natures)—The intention is this: The manifest state like 'human-hood' is not the intrinsic nature of these substances, because it is accomplished by specific combinations (of elements). Nor is the unmanifest prior/posterior state the nature, because that too is accomplished by separation, etc. Therefore, generally, mere 'modifiability' (parinamitva) is their nature. And thus, just as the unmanifest prior state and the manifest middle state of a modifying substance are not causes for grief, so too the subsequent state [should not be].

The particle 'eva' (indeed) here implies unavoidability or the attainment of nature. If you think that the 'unmanifest state' alone is the nature, then the state of 'human-hood' etc., which characterizes the abandonment of nature, should be the object of grief (not death, which is a return to nature). If, however, you think that 'human-hood' alone is the nature, and the unmanifest state occurs due to an obstruction; then, since the obstruction is unavoidable, and since the re-attainment of human-hood etc. upon the removal of that adventitious obstruction at some time is also unavoidable, it is not to be grieved for in any way.

But if the very 'nature' of things is generally the cause of grief, then in a world consisting of a continuous stream of infinite objects with fixed, diverse natures, everyone would be drowning entirely in an ocean of sorrow; so there is no specific cause for grief 'now' (in this specific situation).

Now, if grief is due to separation from an adventitious 'cause of happiness'; then enemies and the like, or begging for alms, which are causes of suffering, are truly the causes for grief; and not the 'destruction of enemies' or 'sovereignty', which are causes of happiness (so why grieve for war?).

If you fear the destruction of your own body etc., which are causes of happiness; then, O Mighty-armed Bharata, you should protect the body etc. by engaging in action (war) according to your capability in the presence of those wishing to kill you.

And if there is fear of public censure etc. caused by killing kinsmen; then for you, who are capable, a 'greater' censure would arise caused by the failure to protect kinsmen (allies/dependents) etc.; and there would be infamy worse than death caused by cowardice etc. And this grief is not difficult to abandon like the sensory pain of cold and heat; rather, being rooted in a misconception that appears pleasant only due to lack of inquiry (avicharita-ramaniya), it is avoidable by the cessation of that (non-inquiry). 'Therefore', even for you who are seized by the great planet (graha) of delusion identifying the body as the Self, even by the inquiry into the secret principles of the Lokayata (Materialist) doctrine, you ought not to grieve in any way—so, for what cause is this lamentation?—this is the meaning. This is what is stated: 'There is no cause for lamentation regarding them.'

इस श्लोक से लेकर आगे के कुछ श्लोकों में संसार के सामान्य मनुष्य के दृष्टिकोण से समस्या को अर्जुन के समक्ष बड़ी सुन्दरता से प्रस्तुत किया गया है। इन दस श्लोकों में श्रीकृष्ण समस्या का स्पष्टीकरण सामान्य व्यक्ति की दृष्टि एवं बुद्धि के अनुसार प्रस्तुत करते हैं।इस भौतिक जगत् में कार्यकरण का नियम अबाधरूप से कार्य करते हुए अनुभव में आता है। कार्य की उत्पत्ति कारण से होती है। सामान्यत कार्य व्यक्त रूप में दिखाई देता है और कारण अव्यक्त रहता है। अत सृष्टिका अर्थ है वस्तुओं का अव्यक्त अवस्था से व्यक्त अवस्था में आ जाना। यही क्रम निरन्तर नियमपूर्वक चलता रहता है।इस प्रकार आज का व्यक्त इसके पूवर् कल अव्यक्त था वर्तमान में वह व्यक्त रूप में उपलब्ध है परन्तु भविष्य में फिर अव्यक्त अवस्था में विलीन हो जायेगा। इसका अर्थ यह हुआ कि वर्तमान स्थिति अज्ञात से आयी और पुन अज्ञात में लीन हो जायेगी। ऐसा समझने पर दुख का कोई कारण नहीं रह जाता क्योंकि एक चक्र के आरे निरन्तर घूमते हुए नीचे भी आते हैं तो केवल बाद में ऊपर उठने के लिए ही।उदाहरणार्थ स्वप्न के पत्नी और शिशु पहले अव्यक्त थे और जागने पर फिर लुप्त हो जाते हैं तो एक ब्रह्मचारी को उस पत्नी और शिशु के लिए शोक करने का क्या कारण है जिसके साथ उसका विवाह कभी हुआ ही नहीं था और जिस शिशु का कभी जन्म ही नहीं हुआ था यदि जैसा कि भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण ने कहा इस जगत् की उत्पत्ति और लय का चक्र निरन्तर एक पारमार्थिक नित्य अविकारी सत्य के रूप में ही चल रहा है तो क्या कारण है कि उस सत्य को बारम्बार बताने पर भी हम समझ नहीं पाते श्रीशंकराचार्य के अनुसार भगवान श्रीकृष्ण यह विचार करते हैं कि इस सत्य को न समझने के लिए अर्जुन को दोष देना उचित नहीं है।श्री शंकराचार्य कहते हैं इस आत्मा का साक्षात् अनुभव करके उसे यथार्थ में जानना कठिन है। तुम्हें ही मैं दोष क्यों दूँ जबकि इसका कारण अज्ञान सबके लिए समान है कोई पूछ सकता है कि आत्मानुभव में इतनी कठिनाई क्या है भगवान् कहते हैं

And this is not logical otherwise, whether regarding eternalness or non-eternalness.

Because [He says] 'jatasya' (for the born) etc. Destruction follows birth, and birth follows destruction—this continuity of birth and death is like a wheel. Thus, to what extent should there be grieving?

Beings such as humans are indeed existing substances; their prior states were unperceived, their middle states like 'human-hood' are perceived, and their subsequent states are unperceived; they abide in their own respective natures. Thus, there is no cause for lamentation regarding them. Having stated that there is no cause for grief even in the doctrine that the body is the Self, He says [in the next verse] that regarding the Self, which is distinct from the body and of a wondrous nature, one who sees, speaks, hears, and attains conviction about the Self through hearing is rare.

Thus, in every way, the unworthiness of grief regarding the Self has been established. Now, removing the doubt of Arjuna—"Even if the Self is not to be grieved for, I grieve regarding the bodies which are aggregates of elements"—the Lord says:
"Adau" (In the beginning), i.e., before birth, bodies made of elements like earth are "Avyakta" (unmanifest/unperceived); "Madhye" (in the middle), i.e., after birth and before death, they are "Vyakta" (manifest/perceived); "Nidhane" (at death), they become unmanifest again indeed. Just as in a dream or magic, they have life/existence only as long as they appear (pratibhasa-matra), like silver in a mother-of-pearl, but they do not exist before or after the knowledge (perception), because the doctrine of 'Drishti-Srishti' (Creation is coeval with Perception) is accepted.

And thus, by the maxim "That which does not exist in the beginning and the end, is so (non-existent) even in the present," they do not truly exist even in the middle; as previously stated in "The unreal has no being" (Gita 2.16). This being so, "Tatra"—regarding those false, utterly trivial beings—"Ka paridevana" (what lamentation) or what cry of distress is there? Meaning, none is proper.

For indeed, having perceived various relatives in a dream, upon waking up, even an ordinary person does not grieve over their separation. This very thing is said in the Purana: "Come from the unseen, and gone again to the unseen"—here, 'aggregate of beings' is the remaining term to be supplied. Thus, the idea is that grief regarding bodies is not proper.

Alternatively, the verse may be interpreted with reference to the great elements (Mahabhutas) like Akasha (Space). "Avyakta" means Avyakrita (Undifferentiated), Consciousness limited by Avidya, which is the "Adi" (prior state) of which they are; "Vyakta" means manifested only through names and forms created by Avidya—not by their own absolute reality—which is the state of their middle existence; such beings like Akasha etc. are "Avyakta-nidhana" indeed—meaning those whose "Nidhana" (dissolution) is into the Avyakta, their own cause, just as pots merge into clay. Regarding such beings, "Ka paridevana" (what lamentation)? This is as before.

And thus, the Shruti "At that time this was undifferentiated; it became differentiated by name and form" etc., shows that the Unmanifest is the material cause of the entire world. Its being the place of dissolution is established by implication, since the effect is seen to merge into the cause. The details are in other texts.

The idea is: If lamentation is not proper even regarding the great elements like Akasha—which are trivial because they are imagined by ignorance—then what need is there to say that it is not proper regarding their effects (bodies)?

Or (another meaning): Since they always exist in their unmanifest form, there is no separation/loss, so lamentation on that account is not proper.

By addressing him as "Bharata," He indicates: "Being born in a pure lineage, you are worthy to understand the scriptural meaning; why do you not understand it?"

Anticipating the doubt that "it is improper for oneself to destroy bodies created by the Lord," He (Krishna) speaks of the absence of grief even by considering the origin, sustenance, and dissolution of bodies, with the verse beginning with "Avyaktadini".

"Avyaktadini" refers to beings, i.e., bodies, whose "Adi" (origin) is the "Avyakta"—the Imperishable (Akshara). "Vyakta" means the manifest world; that indeed is the "Madhya" (middle)—the form of sustenance between origin and dissolution—of those beings. "Avyaktanidhanani" refers to those whose "Nidhana" (dissolution) takes place in the Unmanifest Imperishable alone. Therefore, regarding them, "Ka paridevana"—what lamentation, meaning what worry is there?

Here, the meaning is: Since destruction happens into that very source from which origin took place, grief on one's part is improper.

Even for oneself, after killing them, there is no possibility of hell, etc., because one's own dissolution will also take place in that very place of origin.

"Avyaktadini"—'Avyakta' means non-perception or non-apprehension. Those 'Bhutas' (beings)—constituted by the aggregate of cause and effect (body and senses) in the form of sons, friends, etc.—whose "Adi" (beginning) is this unmanifest state, are "Avyaktadini". Before origin (they were unmanifest), and having been born, before death, they are "Vyaktamadhyani" (manifest in the middle).

"Avyaktanidhanani eva"—Those whose "Nidhana" (death) is again "Avyakta" (non-perception), are "Avyaktanidhanani". The meaning is that even after death, they attain the state of unmanifestness alone.

And thus it has been said (in the Mahabharata): "He has come from the unseen and has gone back to the unseen. He is not yours, nor are you his. Why this vain lamentation?" Therefore, "Ka paridevana"—what lamentation, or what wailing is there regarding these beings who were unseen, became seen, and are destroyed, and who are of the nature of delusion?

This Self under discussion is difficult to know. Why should I blame you alone for a cause of delusion that is common (to all)? How is this Self difficult to know? Regarding this, He says—

Thus, the impropriety of grief was stated due to 'unavoidability' (in the previous verse). Now, the impropriety of grief is stated because those respective objects have a fixed nature, and because they attain a state of 'non-perception' (anupalabdhi) in their prior and posterior phases, which renders them incapable of being distinguished as either pleasurable or painful—through [the verse] 'avyaktadini'. To indicate that the word 'bhuta' refers to the 'body' here, [Ramanuja] stated 'manushyadi' (humans, etc.). To dispel the delusion that words like 'avyakta' and 'vyakta' refer to specific states of Prakriti [as in Sankhya] or to the 'Sat-Brahman' mentioned by Yadavaprakasha, and to inform that such meanings are not useful in the present context, [Ramanuja] explained them as 'anupalabdha' (unperceived), etc. Indeed, it is said elsewhere too: 'He has come here from the unseen, and has gone again to the unseen. He is not yours, nor are you his; why do you grieve in vain?' (Mahabharata 11.2.13).
'Sveshu svabhaveshu vartante' (They abide in their own natures)—The intention is this: The manifest state like 'human-hood' is not the intrinsic nature of these substances, because it is accomplished by specific combinations (of elements). Nor is the unmanifest prior/posterior state the nature, because that too is accomplished by separation, etc. Therefore, generally, mere 'modifiability' (parinamitva) is their nature. And thus, just as the unmanifest prior state and the manifest middle state of a modifying substance are not causes for grief, so too the subsequent state [should not be]. The particle 'eva' (indeed) here implies unavoidability or the attainment of nature.
If you think that the 'unmanifest state' alone is the nature, then the state of 'human-hood' etc., which characterizes the abandonment of nature, should be the object of grief (not death, which is a return to nature). If, however, you think that 'human-hood' alone is the nature, and the unmanifest state occurs due to an obstruction; then, since the obstruction is unavoidable, and since the re-attainment of human-hood etc. upon the removal of that adventitious obstruction at some time is also unavoidable, it is not to be grieved for in any way. But if the very 'nature' of things is generally the cause of grief, then in a world consisting of a continuous stream of infinite objects with fixed, diverse natures, everyone would be drowning entirely in an ocean of sorrow; so there is no specific cause for grief 'now' (in this specific situation).

Now, if grief is due to separation from an adventitious 'cause of happiness'; then enemies and the like, or begging for alms, which are causes of suffering, are truly the causes for grief; and not the 'destruction of enemies' or 'sovereignty', which are causes of happiness (so why grieve for war?). If you fear the destruction of your own body etc., which are causes of happiness; then, O Mighty-armed Bharata, you should protect the body etc. by engaging in action (war) according to your capability in the presence of those wishing to kill you. And if there is fear of public censure etc. caused by killing kinsmen; then for you, who are capable, a 'greater' censure would arise caused by the failure to protect kinsmen (allies/dependents) etc.; and there would be infamy worse than death caused by cowardice etc.

And this grief is not difficult to abandon like the sensory pain of cold and heat; rather, being rooted in a misconception that appears pleasant only due to lack of inquiry (avicharita-ramaniya), it is avoidable by the cessation of that (non-inquiry). 'Therefore', even for you who are seized by the great planet (graha) of delusion identifying the body as the Self, even by the inquiry into the secret principles of the Lokayata (Materialist) doctrine, you ought not to grieve in any way—so, for what cause is this lamentation?—this is the meaning. This is what is stated: 'There is no cause for lamentation regarding them.'

अव्यक्तादीनि unmanifested in the beginning? भूतानि beings? व्यक्तमध्यानि manifested in their middle state? भारत O Bharata? अव्यक्तनिधनानि unmanifested again in the end? एव also? तत्र there? का what? परिदेवना grief.Commentary The physical body is a combination of the five elements. It is seen by the physical eyes only after the five elements have entered into such combination. After death? the body disintegrates and the five elements go back to their source it cannot be seen. Therefore? the body can be seen only in the middle state. The relationship as son? friend? teacher? father? mother? wife? brother and sister is formed through the body on account of attachment and Moha (delusion). Just as planks unite and separate in a river? just as pilgrims unite and separate in a public inn? so also fathers? mothers? sons and brothers unite and separate in this world. This world is a very big public inn. People unite and separate.There is no pot in the beginning and in the end. Even if you see the pot in the middle? you should think and feel that it is illusory and does not really exist. So also there is no body in the beginning and in the end. That which does not exist in the beginning and in the end must be illusory in the middle also. You must think and feel that the body does not really exist in the middle as well.He who thus understands the nature of the body and all human relationships based on it? will not grieve.

It is not reasonable to grieve even for beings which are constituted by bodies and organs, since 'all beings remain unmanifest' etc. (Bharata, O descendant of Bharata;) bhutani, all beings, avyaktaduni, remain unmainfest in the beginning. Those beings, viz sons, friends, and others, constituted by bodies and organs, [Another reading is karya-karana-sanghata, aggregates formed by material elements acting as causes and effects.-Tr.] who before their origination have unmanifestedness (avyakta), invisibility, nonperception, as their beginning (adi) are avyaktaadini. Ca, and; after origination, before death, they become vyakta-madhyani, manifest in the middle. Again, they eva, certainly; become avyakta-nidhanani, unmanifest after death. Those which have unmanifestness (avyakta), invisibility, as their death (nidhana) are avyakta-nidhanani. The idea is that even after death they verily attain unmanifestedness. Accordingly has it been said: 'They emerged from invisibility, and have gone back to invisibility. They are not yours, nor are you theirs. What is this fruitless lamentation!' (Mbh. St. 2.13). Ka, what; paridevana, lamentation, or what prattle, can there be; tatra, with regard to them, i.e. with regard to beings which are objects of delusion, which are invisible, (become) visible, (and then) get destroyed!

Human beings etc., (i.e., bodies) exist as entities; their previous stages are unknown, their middle stages in the form of man etc., are known, and their (final) and future stages are unknown. As they thus exist in their own natural stages, there is no cause for grief.
After thus saying that there is no cause for grief even according to the view which identifies the body with the self, Sri Krsna proceeds to say that it is hard to find one who can be said to have truly perceived the Atman or spoken about It or heard about It or gained a true conception of It by hearing. For the Atman, which is actually different from the body, is of a wonderful nature.