Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 4 - Shloka (Verse) 4

व्याख्या--'अपरं भवतो जन्म परं जन्म विवस्वतः'--आपका जन्म तो अभी कुछ वर्ष पूर्व श्रीवसुदेवजीके घर हुआ है, पर सूर्यका जन्म सृष्टिके आरम्भमें हुआ था। अतः आपने सूर्यको कर्मयोग कैसे कहा था? अर्जुनके इस प्रश्नमें तर्क या आक्षेप नहीं है, प्रत्युत जिज्ञासा है। वे भगवान्के जन्म-सम्बन्धी रहस्यको सुगमतापूर्वक समझनेकी दृष्टिसे ही प्रश्न करते हैं; क्योंकि अपने जन्म-सम्बन्धी रहस्यको प्रकट करनेमें भगवान् ही सर्वथा समर्थ हैं।

भगवान्ने असङ्गत कहा ऐसी धारणा किसीकी न हो जाय अतः उसको दूर करनेके लिये शङ्का करता हुआसा अर्जुन बोला आपका जन्म तो अर्वाचीन है अर्थात् अभी वसुदेवके घरमें हुआ है और सूर्यकी उत्पत्ति पहले सृष्टिके आदिमें हुई थी। तब मैं इस बातको अविरुद्धार्थयुक्त ( सुसङ्गत ) कैसे समझूँ कि जिन आपने इस योगको आदिकालमें कहा था वही आप मुझसे कह रहे हैं।

To remove the doubt of the people regarding the non-divinity (lack of Lordship) of the Lord, he raises an objection with "Bhavata" (Your...).

For the purpose of resolution, assuming the non-lordship of the Lord who is situated like a human being, a contradiction is suspected in His words—this is the remaining part (implication).

If one accepts the Lord's true form, this is not an objection; but taking His 'Lila-vigraha' (form assumed for divine sport), it is described as "Chodyamiva" (like an objection).

He clarifies the meaning of the word 'Etat' (this) with "Yastvam" (Who are you...).

Regarding Lord Vasudeva who is situated like a human being, in order to remove the doubt of fools regarding His non-lordship and non-omniscience, Arjuna spoke making it sound like an objection.

"Bhavato janma aparam"—Your birth is later (recent), in the house of Vasudeva. "Vivasvato janma param"—Vivasvan's birth is prior (ancient), at the beginning of creation. "Tat tasmad"—Therefore, how am I to understand that You alone spoke this knowledge in the beginning?

As for the interpretation that 'aparam' means extremely inferior (due to being human) and 'param' means superior (due to being a deity)—that is to be ignored because it contradicts the rest of the sentence "You spoke in the beginning." Or, it should be accepted as indicative of the Bhashya (commentary) or as not contradictory to it.

(The doubt implies:) The instructor to Aditya is the omniscient Lord, but You, being different from Him, are a non-Lord. And for that very reason, You are not omniscient; therefore, the statement "I spoke this in the beginning" is contradictory.

"Mayi sarvani" (Gita 3.30) ("Renouncing all actions in Me...") was stated.

To know that greatness (of the Lord) from the very beginning, he asks with "Aparam" (Later...) etc.

Believing that the Lord's body originated from Vasudeva, Arjuna spoke with the word 'Aparam' (Later). 'Aparam' means recent (of modern time); 'Param' means of a long time past.

"How am I to understand?" Although this meaning is known from the words, yet, since a contradictory sentence conveys no understanding, he asked, "How am I to understand this?"

The arrangement of the words is clear.

Arjuna said: By the calculation of time, Your birth is 'Aparam' (later), indeed contemporaneous with my birth. And Vivasvan's birth is 'Param' (prior) by calculation of time, calculated as twenty-eight Chaturyugas (cycles of four ages) ago. "You Yourself spoke this in the beginning"—how am I to understand this improbable qualification as actual fact?

(Objection): But surely, it is possible to have spoken it in a previous birth, and memory of deeds done in previous births is reasonable for great souls; thus there is no contradiction here. (Response): Nor is it that he [Arjuna] does not know this speaker, the son of Vasudeva, to be the Lord of All; for he will speak thus later: "You are the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Abode..." (Gita 10.12-13). And in Yudhishthira's Rajasuya sacrifice and elsewhere, he has repeatedly heard from Bhishma and others: "Krishna alone is the origin and dissolution of the worlds..." meaning this entire world is subsidiary to Krishna.

Here it is stated: Partha (Arjuna) indeed knows the Lord, the son of Vasudeva. Though knowing, he asks as if not knowing; his intention is this: Is the birth of the Lord of All—who is opposed to all evil, the sole abode of auspiciousness, omniscient, of true resolve, and whose desires are all fulfilled—which appears to be of the same class as gods and men who are subject to Karma, false like magic/illusion, or is it real? And if it is real, how does the birth take place? What is the nature of this body? What is the cause of birth? When does the birth happen? And for what purpose is the birth? From the manner of the resolution (the answer given by Krishna), this meaning of the question is understood.

Seeing the impossibility of the Lord instructing Yoga to Vivasvan, Arjuna spoke with the word 'Aparam' (Later).

'Aparam' means Your birth is recent. 'Param' means Vivasvan's birth is of an earlier time. Therefore, due to Your being modern, "You spoke this Yoga in the beginning to the ancient Vivasvan"—how am I to understand this, that is, how can I comprehend it?

According to the summary verse "Incidental statement of His own nature..." (Gitarthasangraha 8), he says "In this context" (asmin prasange). Meaning, in the context of the story narration meant for strengthening the sense of duty. "Reality of the Lord's incarnation"—meaning, the nature of not being subject to karma, etc. "Exactly as it is" (yathavat)—meaning, accompanied by proofs and reasoning that refute the idea of it being merely illusory (pratibhasika) etc. By the words "Para" (superior/ancient) and "Avara" (inferior/recent), the difference of species as divine and human is not stated; because there is no contradiction to instruction in that (species difference); because Krishna is known as God even by the gods; because the word "Janma" denotes birth and does not directly denote caste/species; and because the contradiction of time is explicitly stated by "Adau" (in the beginning); and because the subsequent answers like "Many of my births have passed" (4.5), "Whenever indeed" (4.7), "In every age" (4.8) are in the form of resolving the contradiction of time. Therefore, the words 'Para' and 'Avara' refer to the superiority and inferiority of time and number; with this intention, it is said "by calculation of time."

He shows the limit of time intended as the cause of being 'Avara' with "Asmat" (our). "Samakalam" (contemporary)—meaning, not far removed. The word "Tvam" (You) is intended to mean "belonging to now" to illuminate that it implies contradiction, hence "Tvameva" (You indeed) is said. "How is this possible?"—the objection suggested by this is stated as "Improbable."

In "Vijaniyam" (I should know), the intended meaning of the prefix is stated as "Yathartham" (Correctly/Truly). (The objection is based on the fact that)—Either due to the absence of another birth, or due to the lack of connection with the memory of what was experienced in another birth, or due to the listener not knowing that the speaker possesses memory of other births—indeed, the objection of contradiction is raised relying on this current birth. "And not all of this is possible here"—thus he objects to the question with "Nanu" (But/Now). "It is possible to speak by another birth also"—meaning, instruction given to one of that time by a birth of that time is not contradictory. "Of great souls"—meaning not just of Ishvara Krishna, but of other great souls too. Stories of Jatismaras (those who remember past births) are indeed heard; and Manu says "He remembers the previous birth" (4.148). "It is logical"—When the impression (samskara) is formed by experience previously, and it is awakened by the force of special unseen merit (adrishta) etc., there is no illogicality in remembering what was experienced in another birth; just like the memory that breast milk is the cause of relieving thirst during the first suckling; this is the purport.

For other great souls, it is 'memory'; but for Ishvara, 'direct perception' (sakshatkara) regarding ancient events is figuratively called 'memory.' "Some" (Kashchit)—meaning either in the form of time distance or lack of cause etc. "Asau" (This one)—Arjuna, who is rich in hearing (scriptures) etc. through service to elders. "Speaker"—"I spoke to Vivasvan", meaning speaker to himself (Arjuna), or speaker to Vivasvan. "This son of Vasudeva"—Meaning, even though His lordship is concealed by human activities and birth. "Lord of all"—Lord even of Vivasvan etc., this is the purport. Or, whose lordship is manifested by superhuman acts like lifting Govardhana and by having four arms etc. even during the incarnation state.

He establishes the existence of the said knowledge by the effect (behavior) and by the cause (instruction) with "since thus." "Thus"—meaning, preceded by the conclusion of His divinity through instructions of many most trustworthy persons etc. The inference of Arjuna's knowledge was stated by his own words and by the instruction of sages mentioned by him; now he states his possession of knowledge through the advice of relatives known from the Mahabharata story with "Yudhishthira." Meaning, heard in many ways from many most trustworthy persons regarding many events. "Krishna alone"—He who is famous as the cause of maintenance is alone the cause of creation etc., not Brahma, Rudra etc., nor Pradhana etc. Or, "Krishna alone" who appears as the son of Vasudeva to worldly people.

The word "Hi" shows the fame in Shruti like "Narayana alone existed" (Mahopanishad 1.1). "Of the worlds"—"Loka" means world or people (Amara Kosha 3.3.2); when one is intended there, the other meaning applies; here the words 'origin and dissolution' refer to the creator and destroyer. The letter "Cha" gathers the unmentioned cause of maintenance etc. due to the excellence of fame. Thus, the cause of all, stated as the definition of Brahman in "From whom indeed these beings..." (Taittiriya Upanishad 3.1.1) etc., is stated.

Therefore indeed, Arjuna's statement is "Supreme Brahman"; in "Krishnasya hi", the word "hi" suggests the fame of "Lord of the Universe" (Taittiriya Narayana 10.1), "Lord of the lords of senses" (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.9) etc. Since "Krite" is common to many meanings, to manifest that it means "for the sake of", he says "Subsidiary/belonging to Krishna." Here, due to absence of 'Chvi' suffix, naturalness is indicated—like "All are naturally servants" (Padma Ratra) etc. "Existent for Krishna"—means born for Krishna and possessing existence [for Him]. Like in "From whom is the birth etc. of this" (Brahma Sutra 1.1.3), "These beings" (Taittiriya Upanishad 3.1.1), here too the word "Idam" (this) refers to the aggregate of diverse sentient and insentient beings established by various proofs, or it refers to the repetition of the mode of being create-able/destroy-able stated in the first half. By that, having origin etc. dependent on Him becomes the stated reason for being "for His sake", like in [the verse] "In whose belly is the universe led by Hara and Virancha... who protects this... and from whose navel it was born... having stepped over, swallowed, who other than You vomits it again... who is dependent on whom?... such doubt is possible."

Now, he answers what was stated by the objector by accepting it, with "He knows indeed." By the emphasis, it is indicated that there is no dispute on this part. The indication "Ayam" (This one) suggests the meaning was heard as before. Meaning, he knows the son of Vasudeva as "Bhagavan." Here the word Bhagavan refers to the name or the qualities. By the words "Vasudeva-sunu" and "Partha", indicating the relationship of uncle's son and father's sister's son, it is intended that despite the material relationship that conceals lordship like in other men, he knows due to merit and instruction. "Then the question has no scope"—to this he says "Even knowing." He does not ask what is completely unknown; what is indeed known is asked about with a desire to know further specifics; this is the purport.

By "As if not knowing," the manner of questioning filled with humility is indicated. Creating a desire to know the unknown part and a doubt regarding the falsity etc. of birth, the specific known aspects in the Lord are taken up by the genitive words beginning with "Nikhila." "Opposed to all imperfections"—He who removes imperfections like birth and old age even in others, how can He Himself accept the same? This is the purport. "Abode of auspiciousness"—For one satisfied in the bliss of His own nature, what is the use of birth? This is the purport. "Lord of all"—If there were some independent controller of Him, then birth etc. would occur; but he does not exist; this is the idea. "Omniscient"—If He did not know what is good and bad for Himself, then indeed by His own will acceptance of birth etc. would happen like children touching fire; this is the purport. "Of true resolve"—Even having knowledge of good and bad, someone falls in mud thinking "I will fall on dry ground", but He is not like that; this is the heart. Or, if the supreme answer is that incarnation is only for protection of the world, that is also invalid because protection etc. are possible by mere will; this is the purport. "One who has achieved all desires"—If there were some purpose to be achieved, then for that birth etc. might be accepted, but that also does not exist; this is the purport. And in such a situation—"Ishvara does not truly have birth etc., because of being free from karma, like a liberated soul"—by this Anvaya (positive concordance); and "He who has birth etc. is subject to karma, like a Samsari"—by this Vyatireka (negative concordance), there is one inference (Anumana). In that very inference, due to being beyond the command of Ishvara etc. which is the cause of birth in the Subject (Paksha) and Probandum (Sadhya)—this is the second inference. In both inferences—"He who is devoid of the cause, he does not possess the effect, like the agreed example"—thus there is a general invariable concomitance (Vyapti). If "Because of being the Lord of all" is stated, then there is no example (as He is unique); and the intention of a purely negative inference (Kevala-Vyatireki) is improper because of the existence of similar instances (Sapaksha) like pots etc. which are devoid of accepting a body, and because the validity of Kevala-Vyatireki is generally rejected by Yamunacharya and others. Thus, in the absence of acceptance of body etc.—absence of limited knowledge, absence of obstructed resolve, absence of unfulfilled desires, absence of purpose to be achieved—these are the reasons, with liberated souls and pots etc. as examples. Or, taking only the liberated souls who have attained supreme likeness as examples—Omniscience, True Resolve, and Achievement of all desires—these alone are the reasons. Thus, if birth etc. were to exist, then subjection to karma, lack of lordship, lack of omniscience, lack of true resolve, and unfulfilled desires would occur like in a Jiva (Kshetrajna)—these logical contingencies (prasangas) are also intended. And the reasons for the dual characteristics (Ubhaya-linga) mentioned by "Nikhila heya..." are Lordship of all, etc. Due to contradiction with the previously stated form, the mode of birth which is the cause of the doubt of falsity and is generally known is stated: "Of the same class as karma-dependent gods and men." Gods and men etc. are subject to karma; "of their same class" means appearing similar to their birth. Or, the word "Janma" here refers to the body being born; because it is accepted by the Lord, it is said "like magic (Indrajala) etc." Magic is indeed the creation of strange illusions for others by one's own will; by that, here it implies the appearance of that (birth). By the word "Adi" (etc.), assuming the role of an actor etc. is grasped.

Thinking that in the view of falsity (Mithyatva), no specific mode needs to be defined there, he raises a doubt in the view of reality (Satyatva) with "In reality." "How"—means, is it by abandoning the nature of the Supreme Lord or otherwise? "Of what nature"—means, is it composed of three Gunas or non-material (Aprakrita)? "This" (Ayam)—meaning, appearing like an arrangement of the aggregate of elements. "Body"—because it is perceived as having the form of accumulation/growth. "What is the cause of birth"—Is it mere will, or merits and sins accepted by the Lord's own will? "And when"—Is it at the time of ripening of merit/sin or at the time of decline of Dharma etc.? "And for what purpose"—Is it for experiencing pleasure/pain or for protection of the good etc.? "This is the intent"—is the connection. (Objection) "Now, in the verse 'Avaram' (later), only the contradiction is objected to; how is it understood that the intent is regarding many questions there?" To this he says "By the solution/answer." This is the intention: For a question about one thing, an answer regarding another thing is not appropriate; if so, there would be the contingency of the speaker not knowing the intent etc. Therefore, as far as the subject of the answer extends, that far the subject of this question must be accepted to extend. And here in the answer, through four verses (4.5-4.8), the reality of birth, the mode of birth, the reality of the body, and the cause, time, and purposes of birth appear to be propounded in order; therefore, those alone are intended as the things to be asked.

इस अध्याय के प्रारम्भिक श्लोक में घटनाओं के काल के विषयों में स्पष्ट विरोधाभास है। श्रीकृष्ण ने कहा कि उन्होंने सृष्टि के प्रारम्भ में इस योग को विवस्वान् को सिखाया। अर्जुन के लिये स्वाभाविक था कि वह श्रीकृष्ण को देवकी के पुत्र और गोकुल के मुरलीधर कृष्ण के रूप में ही जाने। श्रीकृष्ण की निश्चित जन्म तिथि थी और वे अर्जुन के ही समकालीन थे। इस दृष्टि से उनका सूर्य के प्रति उपदेश करना असंभव था क्योंकि सम्पूर्ण ग्रहों की सृष्टि के पूर्व सूर्य का अस्तित्व सिद्ध है।गीतोपदेष्टा भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण को कोई मनुष्य न समझ ले इसलिये व्यासजी भगवान् के ही मुख से घोषणा करवाते हैं कि

'Aparam' (Later) etc.

Although Arjuna knows the true nature of the Lord, he asks in order to clarify it for the world.

Since freedom from birth and destruction in every way was stated regarding the Lord with verses like "Na tvevaham" (Gita 2.12 - Never was I not...), hearing that, how does he ask "Aparam" (Later...)? To this, he answers referring to "Mayi" (Gita 3.30).

"His greatness" is an indicator here. "Aditah" (From the beginning) means through the cause of valid knowledge (pramana).

In "Mayi sarvani" (Gita 3.30), the greatness of the Supreme Lord is described as characterized by being worthy of worship, etc., and Arjuna's status as the worshiper, etc.

The meaning is that he asks in this way to know through valid proof that difference between the Lord and the Soul (Jiva)—characterized by the relationship of the object of worship and the worshiper—which is accepted by the Lord.

Regarding Lord Vasudeva, to remove the doubt of fools regarding His non-omniscience and impermanence due to His being human, Arjuna raises a doubt while restating the situation. "Aparam" means of short duration, recent, Your birth—acceptance of a body—in the house of Vasudeva, which is inferior due to being human. And Vivasvan's birth is "Param," meaning of long duration, occurring at the beginning of creation, and superior due to being a deity.

Here, since the absence of birth for the Self has already been established previously, Arjuna's question is specifically regarding the body. Therefore, "How should I understand this?"—because the meaning is contradictory. He explains the meaning of "Etat" (this) with "Tvam adau...". That You, who are modern, human, and non-omniscient, spoke in the beginning of creation to the ancient, omniscient Aditya—this meaning is contradictory; this is the purport.

Here is the distilled meaning: Did You, delimited by this body, or delimited by another body, act as the instructor to Aditya?

It cannot be the first case (another body), because it is impossible for a non-omniscient being to remember what was experienced in another birth. Otherwise, the contingency of remembering experiences from other births would apply to me as well, since non-omniscience due to being human is common to both You and me. As stated by the learned: "That which is experienced in another birth is not remembered."

Nor can it be the second case (this same body), because the existence of this modern body was not possible at the beginning of creation. Thus, even if existence at the beginning of creation were possible with another body, the remembrance of it now is untenable; and even if remembrance is tenable with this body, existence at the beginning of creation is untenable. Thus, based on non-omniscience and impermanence, these are Arjuna's two objections (Purvapakshas).

Having heard this, Arjuna—due to the Lord's nature being supernatural (Alaukika) and Vivasvan's nature being worldly (Laukika)—asks with the desire to know why the Lord taught Karma Yoga leaving aside Bhakti: "Aparam" etc.

Your birth—manifestation—is "Aparam"; meaning that than which there is nothing "Param" (superior) or prior; it is such (matchless/primordial). Vivasvan's birth is "Param"—meaning superior or born later. For this reason, how—with what intention—did You teach Yoga to him in the beginning? "May I know this"—meaning, speak so that I may know; this is the purport.

"Aparam" means later (recent), Your birth in the house of Vasudeva. "Param" means prior (ancient), the birth—origin—of Vivasvan (the Sun) at the beginning of creation. Then, "How am I to understand this"—meaning, how am I to understand it in a non-contradictory sense—that "You Yourself spoke this Yoga in the beginning" and "That very same You have spoken to me now"?

Dispelling the doubt entertained by fools regarding Vasudeva being a non-Lord and non-omniscient—for which purpose indeed is Arjuna's question—the Blessed Lord spoke.

Here, wishing to ask a question containing the reality of the Lord's incarnation, using the pretext that "Your instruction to Vivasvan is not possible," Arjuna spoke with the word "Aparam" (Later).

[Your birth is] recent; the Sun's birth is of ancient time. Therefore, how am I to understand this probability?

अपरम् later? भवतः Thy? जन्म birth? परम् prior? जन्म birth? विवस्वतः of Vivasvan? कथम् how? एतत् this? विजानीयाम् am I to understand? त्वम् Thou? आदौ in the beginning? प्रोक्तवान् taughtest? इत thus.Commentary Thy birth took place later in the hourse of Vasudeva Vivasvan or Vivasvat (the Sun) was born earlier in the beginning of evolution. How am I to believe that Thou taughtest this Yoga in the beginning to Vivasvan? and that Thou? the selfsame person? hast now taught it to me I am not able to reconcile this. Be kind enought to enlighten me? O my Lord.

Bhavatah, Your; janma, was aparam, later, in the abode of Vasudeva; (whereas) the birth vivasvatah, of Visvasvan, the Sun; was param, earlier, in the beginning of creation. Therefore, katham, how; vijanyam, am I to understand; etat, this, as not inconsistent; iti, that; tvam, You, yourself; who proktavan, insturcted this Yoga; adau, in the beginning, are the same person who are now teaching me?
By way of demolishing the doubt of fools with regard to Vasudeva, that He has no God-hood and omniscience-to which very purpose was Arjuna's estion-

Arjuna said According to the calculation of time, your birth was indeed later, contemporaneous with our births. And the birth of Vivasvan was at an earlier time, reckoned as twenty-eight cycles of units of four Yugas each. How can I understand as true that you taught it in the beginning?
Now, there is no contradiction here, for it was ite possible that He had taught Vivasvan in a former birth. The memory of what was done in former births is ite natural for great men. This should not be taken to mean that Arjuna does not know the son of Vasudeva, the speaker, as the Lord of all. Because he (Arjuna) says later on: 'You are the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Light and the Supreme Purifier. All the seers proclaim You as the eternal Divine Purusa, the Primal Lord, unborn and all-pervading. So also proclaim the divine sage Narada, Asita, Devala and Vyasa. You Yourself also are saying this to me' (10.12-13.)
Arjuna had heard repeatedly from Bhisma and others during the Rajasuya sacrifice of Yudhisthira, 'Krsna alone is the cause of creation and submergence of all the worlds. This universe, consisting of things both animate and inanimate, was created for the sake of Krsna' (Ma. Bha., 2.38.23) 'The entire universe is subservient to Krsna' is the meaning of 'For the sake of Krnsa'.
This apparent contradiction may be explained as follows: Arjuna surely knows the son of Vasudeva as the Bhagavan. Though knowing Him as such, he estions as if he did not know Him. This is his intention. Can the birth of the Lord of all, who is antagonistic to all that is evil and wholly auspicious, omniscient, whose will is always true and whose desires are fulfilled - can the birth of such a Person be of the same nature as that of the gods, men etc., who are subject to Karma? Or can it be false like the illusions of a magical show? Or could it be real? In other words, is the birth of the Supreme Being as the incarnate a real fact or a mere illusory phenomenon produced by a magician's art? If His birth is real, what is the mode of His birth? What is the nature of His body? What is the manner of His birth? What is the nature of this body of His? What is the casue of His birth? To what end is He born? The way in which Sri Krsna answers Arjuna's estion, justifies the construing of his estion in this way.