SankarAcArya's bhagavad gItA bhAshya: 2. 12-13.

[Guest guest]

In the commentary to verse 2. 11, it had been said that Bhishma and Drona

are not to be grieved over, so that Arjuna's lament is misplaced. Verses

2. 12-13 and the corresponding commentary expand upon this reasoning. We

also start seeing the development of one characteristic feature in the

commentary, namely, how SankarAcArya connects the previous verse to the

current one.

 

Vidyasankar

 

---

 

Translation -

 

Why is it said that they (Bhishma and Drona and others) are not to be

grieved over? Because they are eternal. How? -

 

Verse -

 

na tv eva ahaM jAtu nAsaM na tvaM neme (na ime) janAdhipAH |

na ca eva na bhavishyAmaH sarve vayam ataH param || 2. 12 ||

 

na - used for negation, and stands for no/not/never etc

tu, eva - particles added for emphasis, meaning clear from context

ahaM - I

jAtu - at any time (kadAcit, according to the commentary)

nAsaM = na AsaM - was not (goes with ahaM in the verse)

tvam - you

ime janAdhipAH - these rulers of men

ca - and

sarve vayam - we all

na bhavishyAmaH - will not be (goes with vayam = we)

ataH param - after this time, in a future time (after death, acc. to

the commentary)

 

Never was I not, nor you, nor these kings. And never will we ever cease to

be, in future.

 

Translation -

 

There was never a time in which I was not. I have always been existent.

The sense is that, like the space in a pot, [1] through the origin and

death of various bodies in the past, I have always been eternal.

Similarly, there was never a time when you were not; you too always

existed. Similarly with these rulers, they have also always existed.

Similarly, we shall not cease to exist. We shall continue to exist, beyond

the time when this body perishes. The meaning is that we are eternal

through all three times (past, present and future), in the form of the

Atman. The plural number used in this verse is in respect of the different

bodies, it does not indicate a difference in the Self.

 

Notes -

 

[1]. The space in a pot is a standard analogy in Advaita Vedanta. The idea

behind it is that when the pot is broken, nothing happens to the space

inside it. It is neither created when the pot is made, nor destroyed when

the pot is destroyed. Similarly, when the body perishes, the Atman remains

unchanged.

 

Translation -

 

Then, how is the Atman eternal? (Krishna) offers an example -

 

Verse -

 

dehino'smin yathA dehe kaumAraM yauvanaM jarA |

tathA dehAntara-prAptiH dhIras tatra na muhyate || 2. 13 ||

 

yathA - just like

dehinaH - of the dehin, the embodied one

asmin dehe - in this body

kaumAraM - childhood

yauvanaM - youth

jarA - old age (leading to death)

tathA - similarly

dehAntara-prAptiH - the attaining of another body

dhIraH - he who has intelligence (dhIH)

tatra - there

na muhyate - is not deluded.

 

Just as there is childhood, youth and old age for the embodied one, so

also there is the taking on of another body. The intelligent man is not

deluded by this.

 

Translation -

 

He who has a body (deha) is a dehin. For the embodied self, in this

present body, there are the states of kaumAraM - the state of being a

child, yauvanaM - the middle state of being a youth, and jarA - old age,

where the body disintegrates. These three states are different amongst one

another. When the first state (of childhood) passes, and the second state

is born, the Self does not pass away, nor does it come into being anew.

What then? It is seen that the second and third state is attained by the

changeless Atman. In whatever manner these states are gone through, in the

same manner, another body is attained by the changeless Atman. This being

so, the intelligent man is not deluded by this.

 

---------

[Guest guest]

I forgot to add a note to the commentary on verse 2. 12. This pertains to

SankarAcArya's position that the plural number in this verse is because of

the differences in bodies and does not refer to a difference in Atman (or

equivalently, differences among Atmans). A legitimate doubt may arise,

that this is not to be inferred directly from the verse itself. However,

that the Atman is One only, is seen in many places in the Gita. For

example, see verse 2. 30, which reads dehI nityam avadhyo 'yaM dehe

sarvasya bhArata, meaning, this Self, the embodied one, is eternal and

indestructible in all bodies. This does not point to a number of Selves in

a number of bodies, but to one Self in all bodies.

 

I will be traveling for a while, beginning Monday, the 16th of November,

and will not be able to post the translation series regularly. I'm trying

to reach up to the 16th verse of chapter 2 (the famous verse, nAsato

vidyate bhAvaH etc) before leaving. It is an appropriate place to pause

and go back over the previous part of the text, before proceeding to 2. 17

and forward.

 

Regards,

Vidyasankar