Swami Dayananda's commentary on gita chapter 2, verse11 and 12

[Guest guest]

Dear Ram Chandran,

Here it is. I feel so bad to see how this looks on this screen. This has

been the major deterrant. I will later send you a small write up about

myself. I have edited and prepared this entire commentary of Swami

Dayanandaji and it looks so good witha all the formatting and looks so bad

on this that I didn't send you. I do read some of your discussions and

marvel at amount of material all of you put up! May be now and then I will

join your discussions!

 

Swami Dayananda's Geeta Home Study course

Chapter 2. Verse 11 and 12.

THE TEACHING BEGINS

Because the words to be spoken by K¤À¸a to Arjuna comprise the teaching, the

G¢t¡ is said to begin with the next verse. K¤À¸a began by telling Arjuna

that there was no reason for grief - a¿ocy¡n anva¿ocaÅ tvam - and concluded

the G¢t¡ saying: 'Grieve not - m¡ ¿ucaÅ' In between there is only removal of

grief, or more accurately put, removal of the reason for grief. The cause of

grief, ignorance and error, is removed totally. Therefore, the entire

g¢t¡-¿¡stra is a ¿¡stra which removes sorrow, ¿oka.

Sorrow refers to any complaint. Any uneasiness about me, centred on the

self, is sorrow. Physical pain is not sorrow, but complaining about such

pain is sorrow. The problem is in thinking that everyone else is well and I

am not. This self-centred sorrow, ¿oka, is purely the brood of ignorance -

wrong thinking stemming from wrong notions about oneself and the world.

K¤À¸a's words, Bhagav¡n's G¢t¡, addressed this very problem.

¸ÉÒ¦ÉMÉ´ÉÉxÉÖ´ÉÉSÉ*

+ÉÉäSªÉÉxÉx´ÉÉÉäSɺi´ÉÆ |ÉYÉÉ´ÉÉnùÉÆÉ ¦ÉɹɺÉä*

MÉiÉɺÉÚxÉMÉiÉɺÉÚÆÉ xÉÉxÉÖÉÉäSÉÎxiÉ {ÉÎhb÷iÉÉ&** 11 **

¿r¢bhagav¡nuv¡ca

a¿ocy¡nanva¿ocastvaÆ prajµ¡v¡d¡Æ¿ca bh¡Àase

gat¡s£nagat¡s£Æ¿ca n¡nu¿ocanti pa¸·it¡Å Verse 11

¸ÉÒ¦ÉMÉ´ÉÉxÉ ¿r¢bhagav¡n - ár¢ Bhagav¡n; =´ÉÉSÉ uv¡ca - said;

i´É¨É tvam - you; +ÉÉäSªÉÉxÉ a¿ocy¡n - those who should not be grieved

for; +x´ÉÉÉäSÉ& anva¿ocaÅ - grieve; |ÉYÉÉ´ÉÉnùÉxÉ prajµ¡v¡d¡n - words of

wisdom; ¦ÉɹɺÉä bh¡Àase - you speak; SÉ ca - and; {ÉÎhb÷iÉÉ& pa¸·it¡Å - the

wise; MÉiÉɺÉÚxÉ gat¡s£n- - those from whom the breath has left;

+MÉiÉɺÉÚxÉ agat¡s£n - those from whom the breath has not yet left; SÉ ca -

and; xÉ +xÉÖÉÉäSÉÎxiÉ na anu¿ocanti - do not grieve

ár¢ Bhagav¡n said:

You grieve for those who should not be grieved for. Yet you speak words of

wisdom. The wise do not grieve for those who are living or for those who are

no longer living.

Arjuna, confused about dharma and adharma and overwhelmed by sorrow, became

a ¿iÀya and asked for ¿reyas. Wanting to help Arjuna out of his sorrow for

good and knowing that relative ¿reyas was useless here, K¤À¸a's teaching was

for imparting self-knowledge alone.

The subject matter of the remainder of the G¢t¡ is self-knowledge,

¡tma-jµ¡na, the cause for the removal of sorrow. áa´kara's commentary starts

with this verse since it marks the beginning of the teaching.

While the word 'tvam,' meaning 'you,' refers to Arjuna, it can also apply to

any second person. The word is significant given that the whole

ved¡nta-¿¡stra is nothing but 'That thou art - tat tvam asi.' The first six

chapters of the G¢t¡ deal with 'you' alone. What is 'you' in the equation,

tat tvam asi? You are 'that' means you are equated to 'that.' 'That' has to

be presented and the meaning given is the Lord, Ì¿vara. Therefore, 'tat tvam

asi' means 'you are Ì¿vara.'

That there is a difference between you and the Lord is obvious. But, because

the statement, 'tat tvam asi,' is an equation, it seems as though 'you' are

equated to the Lord. The vision of the ¿ruti is that you are that Ì¿vara who

is the cause for the entire creation. That Brahman you are. The 'tat tvam

asi' equation is a statement, a v¡kya, of this vision.

There are two elements involved here. One is Ì¿vara, the Lord, which is the

meaning of the word tat; and the other is the j¢va, the individual, which is

the meaning of the word tvam, you. Unless the meaning of 'you' is properly

understood, the equation cannot be understood because there is a

contradiction. If the statement, 'You are Brahman,' were to be a

self-evident fact, there would be no necessity for the teaching at all.

Since, however, there is a contradiction between j¢va and Ì¿vara, we have to

resolve it. Unless there is absence of contradiction, there is no identity.

Unless you recognise the real meaning of the word 'you,' which means 'I.'

there is no way of discovering the identity between you and Ì¿vara, that the

'tat tvam asi'equation reveals.

Therefore, the first six chapters of the G¢t¡ emphasise 'you.' The next six

chapters deal with 'that' the Lord, and the last six chapters deal with the

identity between the two. You will find, as you proceed, that the whole

subject matter in the seventh chapter changes and that the last six chapters

are significantly different.

ARJUNA'S SORROW IS YOUR SORROW

Arjuna's sorrow, the subject matter of the first chapter, is the sorrow of

any j¢va, the individual, one who is subject to sorrow. That Arjuna was sad

is not unusual. In fact, we are all with Arjuna. His sorrow seems to be very

legitimate. If this situation could not cause sorrow, what could? We can

well appreciate and sympathise with Arjuna because for much lesser reasons,

we find ourselves in even deeper trouble. This is the condition of the j¢va.

That the j¢va is desirous of getting rid of sorrow is also obvious.

Generally, people seek relief through escapes. What is significant here is

that Arjuna wanted to resolve the sorrow for good, which is the reason we

have a g¢t¡-¿¡stra. Arjuna was told straight away by K¤À¸a, 'You, Arjuna,

grieve unnecessarily.' Over the shoulders of Arjuna, you too are being

addressed. You too have entertained sorrow, the state of mind known as ¿oka.

WHAT IS DESERVING OF GRIEF?

áocya is that which deserves grief, that which has legitimate basis for

sorrow. In the society, we have universally accepted that certain events are

matters for sorrow, while others are not. For example, when someone is about

to be married, we do not send condolences. We send congratulations. Marriage

is a matter for joy and laughter, not for sorrow. This is the case in any

culture. For a death, on the other hand, even when there is relief involved

because the person was suffering extreme pain and required constant care,

there is at least a tinge of sadness when someone dies. Therefore, death is

synonymous with mourning and can be called ¿ocya, universally.

There is also personal ¿ocya. You may be sad because of something that has

come or gone, whereas another person may not be sad at all. A man may be

very happy that his mother has come, whereas his wife is a pack of nerves.

For him the event is not ¿ocya, but for her it is a great ¿ocya. Because

this woman has walked into their home, one person becomes a pack of nerves.

The other is ecstatic because he can show off his accomplishments to his

mother. The event is the same for both of them, but for one person it is

¿ocya and for the other it is a¿ocya. Thus, we find that some things are

¿ocya universally and others are ¿ocya only for an individual.

Culturally, there may also be peculiar situations that are ¿ocyas. In some

cultures the birth of a girl is ¿ocya, whereas in other cultures the birth

of a boy may cause sorrow since too many boys are definitely a problem.

Thus, an object of sorrow, ¿oka, is called ¿ocya just as an object of

knowledge, jµ¡na, is called jµeya. An object of sorrow means a situation

that causes sorrow, be it an event or an experience. A situation that does

not cause sorrow is called a¿ocya. Here, K¤À¸a's contention is that whatever

may be the situation, you have no legitimate reason for grief. In the coming

verses he will establish that there is no legitimate cause for sorrow both

from the relative and the absolute standpoints.

THE WISE DO NOT GRIEVE

Here, K¤À¸a told Arjuna that he had picked up sorrow where it was not

warranted at all and that people of knowledge, pa¸·itas, do not entertain

any grief. Pa¸·¡ means self-knowledge and a pa¸·ita is one in whom

self-knowledge is born . K¤À¸a also acknowledged in this verse that,

although Arjuna was grieving over that which did not deserve any grief, he

had also spoken words of wisdom. Bhagav¡n remembered all of Arjuna's words

from the first chapter when he spoke so eloquently about who would go to

naraka and why the dharma would be in trouble, etc. While acknowledging the

wisdom of Arjuna's words, K¤À¸a told him that people of wisdom do not

grieve.

Arjuna was not a wise man and that was his whole problem, K¤À¸a knew that

all he had to do was make Arjuna a pa¸·ita so that he would not see a

problem where there wasn't one, as he was presently doing. The sorrow itself

was unwarranted which was why he was aggrieved.

With reference to what, do the wise not grieve? Lord Yama, death, can

interfere at any time. There are many breaths and any one of them could be

the last. One breath alone does not last for eighty years. Between every

inhalation and every exhalation, there is a gap. Therefore, how do you know

which breath will be the last? Only when the next breath comes do we know

that the last breath was not the last.

The verse makes a distinction between one who has breathed his or her last

and one who has not. Men of wisdom do not entertain any grief either for the

dead or for the not yet dead. Why was death referred to here? Because all of

Arjuna's arguments revolved only around death. He was always talking about

the imminent death of his teachers and members of his family. Destruction

was involved because there was a battle ensuing. This was one reason.

In addition, death is the only event that uniformly, universally, evokes

sorrow. We would never send condolences to the bereaved unless we knew they

were sad. On the other hand, if the survivors were sometimes happy, we would

not automatically send condolences. We would have first found out whether

they were sad or not and if not, if they were happy, we would have to send

messages of congratulation. Without even a thought, however, we all send

condolences because death is an event that universally evokes sorrow.

To use an analogy for why death was used here, a boxer who wants to become

the heavyweight champion of the world has only to fight one person, the

present champion. All he has to do is knock him out and he will become the

world champion. Similarly, if death is one event which invariably evokes

sorrow in all, with reference to which the wise do not grieve, certainly the

loss of hair or the loss of a relationship or marriage will not be the cause

for sorrow.

Finally, death is a particularly appropriate event to use in a discussion

about sorrow and its removal when what is to be discussed is ¡tm¡, which is

not subject to death. K¤À¸a told Arjuna, that anything he might look upon as

a source of sorrow was not. Nor would any wise man look upon anything as a

source of sorrow because there is no source of sorrow.

SOURCE OF SORROW

What is it that can cause you sorrow? There can be only two sources -

yourself, ¡tm¡ or a source other than yourself, an¡tm¡. If ¡tm¡ is the

source of sorrow, then there is no problem. You will always be sad because

sadness is your nature, your svabh¡va. In fact, when you are sad, you will

be very happy because to be sad is your nature.

A restless monkey is a healthy, happy monkey because restlessness is its

nature. A quiet monkey is a problem and should be cause for concern. If you

are taking care of a monkey who suddenly becomes very quiet, do not think he

has become a s¡dhu and is meditating. He definitely has a problem and may

require attention. Similarly, what is natural to you cannot be a source of

sorrow. If sorrow is our own nature, then we have no cause for sorrow at

all. We should all be happy being sad. Thus, if ¡tm¡ is the source of my

sorrow, then sadness is not a problem.

Since sadness is a problem, we must analyse whether it is the ¡tm¡ or the

an¡tm¡ that is the source of our sadness. This means that either the world

that you come across is the source of your sorrow or you yourself are its

source - in other words, you are a source of sorrow to yourself. Therefore,

we have to analyse ¡tm¡ and an¡tm¡ from this perspective too, in order to

discover the source of our sorrow. This analysis is the sole subject matter

of the G¢t¡.

Pa¸·itas are those who know the ¡tm¡ and an¡tm¡. If you know the ¡tm¡, then

you naturally know the an¡tm¡ also because what is not ¡tm¡ can only be

an¡tm¡. Conversely, if you know what an¡tm¡ is, you will also know what ¡tm¡

is. Therefore, knowing one implies knowing the other.

Arjuna's grief was due to not knowing the difference between ¡tm¡ and

an¡tm¡. That is, he did not have ¡tma-an¡tma-viveka. Knowing the difference,

viveka, resolves the problem. This verse identifies the subject matter of

the G¢t¡ as ¡tma-an¡tma-viveka and states the result of such knowledge -

knowing themselves, the wise do not grieve.

The g¢t¡-¿¡stra is the connection between the subject matter and the result

in that it reveals what the ¡tm¡ is, thereby enabling one to become wise.

And who is qualified for this knowledge? A qualified person is one who has a

good degree of dispassion, vair¡gya with reference to his or her likes and

dislikes and who has a desire for liberation, mumukÀ¡. Here, Arjuna is the

qualified student and K¤À¸a is the teacher.

A PRAGMATIC VIEW OF THIS VERSE

This verse can be viewed from the standpoint of a pragmatist who has no

belief in any scripture or its statements. Or, it can be viewed from the

standpoint of a person who has faith, ¿raddh¡ in the survival of the soul

after death, from the standpoint of a believer, ¡stika, a follower of the

Veda. It can also be viewed from the standpoint of the vision of the G¢t¡ -

the standpoint of ¡tm¡ itself.

The practical person's standpoint is that any sorrow, if analysed, has no

legitimacy. Legitimate sorrow is sorrow that is commonly accepted. The

question is, is there a sorrow which can be called legitimate? For a simple,

practical person, if sorrow produces a result that you want, then it is

legitimate for you. Otherwise, it is not. That we all have sorrow is not in

question for the practical person, but the point is that it does not produce

any result.

When a person is sad because someone very near and dear has died, what does

this sadness produce? Does it alter the fact that one's friend is dead and

gone? No. Sadness does not alter any fact. A woman is crying because someone

has died. Crying, she gets up and lights the stove. Crying, she boils water

and makes coffee. Crying she adds milk and sugar. Crying, she drinks it.

Nothing changes. Previously, she drank coffee and now also she is drinking

coffee. All that is new is the crying. She is not taking coffee to cry

better. No fact is altered.

>From a pragmatist's point of view, sorrow is not going to help you and it

certainly does not help the dead. If I am dead and gone, I have no problem.

Even if I am dying, can I afford to be sad? The heart generally does not

give up easily. It keeps trying even when there is pain, even when it misses

beats, or even when one artery is gone. It does not give up. However, when

you become sad, the heart may think, 'This fellow is sad. Why should I

continue to work?' Because you have already decided, it too will give up.

The will also seems to have a way of moving the limbs and organs to make

them tick. If the will is gone, if you are sad, the fighting system will

necessarily give up.

There is a story about three men who, in the doctor's opinion, were dying of

terminal diseases. The doctor therefore asked each of them what he wanted.

The first man asked for a priest so that he could make his confession and

this was arranged. The second man wanted to see his family and the doctor

arranged this as well. When the third man was asked what he wanted, he

replied, 'I want another doctor!!!'

This third man was practical and wanted to live. He had certain something

about him that perhaps would make the heart try harder. Because all the

strength he had was required in order to live, he definitely could not

afford to be sad.

We have already seen that sadness with reference to someone who is dead

produces no result in that it does not alter the fact. But, shouldn't you be

sad if someone is seriously ill? If you cry when you visit such a man, he

will think he is going to die, although all the doctors may have been

telling him that his condition is not serious and that he should not worry.

The doctors may even have some hope; but your crying is going to make him

doubt what the doctors have been saying. In other words, he will read his

own death in your crying and then give up. Anyone who is ill requires

strength and therefore cannot afford to be sad. Instead of crying, you have

to boost the person's morale in whatever way you can, which, in turn, can

boost his or her strength.

GRIEF IS NEVER LEGITIMATE

Thus, crying does not alter the fact that the dead have gone and the dying

do not require your crying. If you yourself are dying, crying is also

useless. Why then this sorrow? Sorrow still takes place. It is born of

confusion, aviveka. What is subject to change will change. Why then sit and

say, 'They are changing. They are changing.' Changing is changing.

One who dies is one who is subject to death. Therefore, the one who will

die, dies, and the one who will not die, does not die. What is not subject

to death will always remain, and what is subject to death will not. Death

may come earlier than expected, but it is always expected, although we do

not know which breath will be the last.

Grief, therefore, is never legitimate. From the practical person's

standpoint, sorrow is useless and for the one who believes that the j¢va

continues after the death of the body, sorrow is also not a problem because

the j¢va itself does not die.

TWO-FOLD TEACHING METHODOLOGY - PRAVÎTTI AND NIVÎTTI

The first portion of the Vedas is in the form of prav¤tti, meaning - that

you engage yourself in positive pursuits in order to accomplish certain

ends, which you do not have now and want to accomplish. These pursuits may

be in the form of progeny, wealth, another world, a better birth, and so

on - all of which require appropriate effort to achieve the desired ends.

This subject matter of the Vedas in the form of effort-based pursuit in

terms of action, karma, is called prav¤tti-¡tmaka-¿¡stra.

The karma enjoined in the first portion of the Vedas is three-fold from the

standpoint of the means of doing it - mental activity, m¡nasa, speech,

v¡cika, and physical activity involving the limbs, k¡yika. -For example,

repeating the Vedas is a prayer employing both mind and speech. Chanting the

PuruÀas£kta is also a prayer in praise of the Lord, the puruÀa, who is

everything. The PuruÀas£kta also gives you the knowledge of the Lord. Any

s£kta is both a prayer and something to be understood.

Chanting is a karma which is v¡cika. However, chanting can also be an a´ga,

a part of a ritual. For instance, a pa¸·ita may chant the PuruÀas£kta, line

by line, while offering a flower or some other oblation. Thus, the same

mantras can be chanted, themselves forming a prayer, or used as part of a

ritual. This three-fold karma - k¡yika, v¡cika and m¡nasa - is the subject

matter of the first portion of the Vedas and is what is meant by prav¤tti,

what you must do to accomplish certain desirable ends.

The last portion of the Vedas, called Ved¡nta, is niv¤tti-¡tmaka-¿¡stra in

the sense that is purely in the form of negation. The first part of the

verse we are presently studying, a¿ocy¡n anva¿ocaÅ tvam, which reveals the

entire subject matter of the G¢t¡, is also in the form of negation. In

prav¤tti, the doer, the kart¡, is retained. The kart¡ is told to do certain

things in order to accomplish certain results. Whereas, in the Ved¡nta

portion, the very notion that 'I am the doer' is questioned and negated.

Here also there is something to be accomplished - that which is not already

accomplished by you, the kart¡. The accomplishment is negation of the

doership in the wake of the knowledge of the ¡tm¡.

This portion of the Veda, which says that you are the reality of everything,

that you are the whole, is in the form of negation, niv¤tti, in the sense

that all the notions that you superimpose upon the self, the ¡tm¡, are

negated. Therefore, this part of the Veda is in the form of knowledge,

jµ¡na, leading to the negation and recognition of what I am not and an

appreciation of what I am.

Sorrow is something that is superimposed upon the ¡tm¡ due to the

non-recognition of the nature, the reality, svar£pa, of the ¡tm¡. Therefore,

all sorrow is really without reason because sorrow itself has its roots only

in non-recognition of the self and confusion. The world, an¡tm¡, cannot

cause you sorrow, nor can ¡tm¡ be a source of sorrow. Thus, this verse

starts with the negative particle naµ, meaning 'not' - a¿ocy¡n, which means

na ¿ocy¡n.

Generally, a naµ would not be the first word of any ¿¡stra, negation not

being an appropriate beginning. A ¿¡stra should begin with something

positive. Here, the ¿¡stra, being in the form of niv¤tti, begins with naµ -

it begins with the word, a¿ocy¡n, meaning that nothing is deserving of

grief. Because Arjuna was in sorrow, the word a¿ocy¡n is extremely relevant

here.

The Lord is called Hari because he is the one whose grace removes

everything. The Lord is a robber, a remover, of all of your problems, of

everything that you do not want. Lord ViÀ¸u is called Hari and Lord áiva is

called Hara. Both their names originate from the same root, 'h¤' - to rob,

to remove.

SORROW IS NOT REASONABLE

Arjuna is told, 'You are aggrieved for no reason. You have entertained grief

with reference to situations, which do not demand any grief on your part.

Bh¢Àma and Dro¸a can take care of themselves. You need not have any grief on

their behalf or for any other reason.' If you understand everything from the

standpoint of ¡tm¡ there is no sorrow. From any other standpoint also,

sorrow is not reasonable.

It is not that Arjuna was advised to have no sorrow. Such advice would not

have been proper. Therefore, we should not say that we should not be sad

because the G¢t¡ says so. Nor does the ¿¡stra say that it is not proper to

be sad. It says there is no reason for sadness, meaning that sadness, sorrow

is something to be inquired into and understood.

TWO ORDERS OF REALITY

The G¢t¡ says that you have entertained grief for which there is no reason

because neither the ¡tm¡ nor an¡tm¡ is the source of sorrow. This statement

must, then, be proved, which the g¢t¡-¿¡stra does by revealing that ¡tm¡,

whose nature is fullness, ¡nanda-svar£pa, cannot be affected by an¡tm¡,

mithy¡, because the very existence of an¡tm¡ depends on ¡tm¡, satya, the

truth of everything. The ¡tm¡ then, is not going to be affected by mithy¡

just as the imaginary snake you see on the rope cannot affect the rope. If

the rope is wet, it is wet, but it has not been made so by the sliminess of

the snake you see sitting on top of it! The ¡tm¡ is not affected by anything

that has been superimposed upon it.

Therefore, the basis, the adhiÀh¡na, satya, is not affected by mithy¡.

Mithy¡ depends upon the ¡tm¡, for its existence and sustenance, for its

fuel, its very fibres of being. The only thing that could affect ¡tm¡ would

be something enjoying the same order of reality. When two entities belonging

to the same order of reality, such as the father-in-law and the son-in-law,

come together in a relationship, the dependency of one will affect the

other. If the son-in-law does not have a job and finds it necessary to move

in with his father-in-law, the son-in-law's dependency will definitely

affect the father-in-law. This dependence is entirely different and is not

what is under discussion here.

What we are discussing is ¡tm¡ which is satya and an¡tm¡ which is mithy¡.

Just as the svar£pa of water is not affected by the wave, the svar£pa of the

¡tm¡, sat-cit-¡nanda, is not affected by an¡tm¡. This subject matter is

discussed throughout the G¢t¡ starting with this verse. Although the verse

starts with a negative particle, naµ, it is not an improper beginning

because the whole G¢t¡ is niv¤tti-¡tmaka.

Before beginning the Mah¡bh¡rata, Vy¡sa saluted the Goddess of Knowledge,

Sarasvati, and he started the first chapter of the G¢t¡ with the word

Dh¤tar¡Àra, meaning the one who sustains the entire universe. In this way,

prayer for an auspicious beginning was well taken care of and nothing more

was required. To begin the teaching with the statement, 'There is no room

for sorrow,' as he did in this verse, is therefore a very effective

beginning, although a negative particle was used.

xÉ i´Éä´ÉɽÆþ VÉÉiÉÖ xÉɺÉÆ xÉ i´ÉÆ xÉä¨Éä VÉxÉÉÊvÉ{ÉÉ&*

xÉ SÉè´É xÉ ¦ÉʴɹªÉɨÉ& ºÉ´Éæ ´ÉªÉ¨ÉiÉ& {É®ú¨ÉÂ** 12 **

na tvev¡haÆ j¡tu n¡saÆ na tvaÆ neme jan¡dhip¡Å

na caiva na bhaviÀy¡maÅ sarve vayamataÅ param Verse 12

+½þ¨É aham - I; VÉÉiÉÖ j¡tu - ever; xÉ iÉÖ +ɺɨÉ na tu ¡sam - did not

exist; (<ÊiÉ iti) xÉ B´É na eva - not indeed; i´É¨É tvam - you; (xÉ +ɺÉÒ&

na ¡s¢Å - did not exist); (<ÊiÉ iti) xÉ na - not; <¨Éä ime - these;

VÉxÉÉÊvÉ{ÉÉ& jan¡dhip¡Å - kings; (xÉ +ɺÉxÉ na ¡san - did not exist); (<ÊiÉ

iti) xÉ na - not; +iÉ& {É®ú¨É ataÅ param - hereafter; ºÉ´Éæ sarve - all;

´ÉªÉ¨É vayam - we; xÉ ¦ÉʴɹªÉɨÉ& na bhaviÀy¡maÅ - shall not exist; SÉ

ca - and; (<ÊiÉ iti) xÉ B´É na eva - not at all

There was never a time that I did not exist, nor you nor these kings. Nor

will any of us cease to exist in the future.

If all these people are going to die, how can it be said that they do not

cause sorrow for the bereaved? Surely, since they are going to die, they

must be the cause of sorrow (¿ocya). Even those who are not on the

battlefield are ¿ocyas because they too are eventually going to die.

Addressing this doubt, K¤À¸a shifted the discussion to the vision of ¡tm¡.

His statements were not meant as an argument to kill but rather, to provide

an understanding of dharma so that what was to be done could be done. Since

Arjuna also wanted absolute ¿reyas, K¤À¸a talked about the nature of ¡tm¡.

He said 'There is no time that I did not exist. To say that I did not exist

at some time is not true. I always existed.' K¤À¸a was obviously, therefore,

not an ordinary person. He was an avat¡ra. He could say, 'I always existed.'

Could the same thing be said of a j¢va like Arjuna? K¤À¸a said: 'That you

did not exist before is also not true. You too always existed.'

Being a prince, Arjuna was also not an ordinary person. K¤À¸a therefore went

on to say that all the stalwarts standing before them on the battlefield,

leaders of the people, chieftains, commanders-in-chief, and all the other

soldiers had also always existed. What K¤À¸a was saying in this verse is

that all of us are eternal: 'I was there before and you were there before,

as were all these other people.' In his vision, they were all there before.

The next question would be, what about later? We might have existed before,

but we might not exist later. Will there be a time in the future when I am

not? K¤À¸a says, 'No! After the destruction of the body you will continue to

exist.'

BIRTH AND DEATH IN TERMS OF THE VISION OF THE GÌTË

We have a concept that everyone is born and we have a horoscope to prove it.

We know that we were born at a given time and take this to mean that there

was a time when we were not. This is a very well-entrenched notion about the

'I'- that I was born, that I am getting old, that I am going to die, and so

on. If you are born, you will naturally get old. The notion that you are

getting old is going to be there as long as you think you are born.

In the vision of the G¢t¡ there is no such thing as birth for you. Ëtm¡, 'I'

is not born. The notion that I am born is negated here by using double

negatives. That we celebrate the birthday of K¤À¸a does not confirm the

non-existence of K¤À¸a before. It only confirms that on this particular day,

in this particular form (n¡ma-r£pa), K¤À¸a was born. To say that, he was

born in this n¡ma-r£pa is correct and creates no problems. But to say that

K¤À¸a was not there before, despite what people might think, is not true.

Therefore, K¤À¸a was not really born. He was 'as though' born.

K¤À¸a went on to say that it is also not true to think that you were not

there before. There was no time that you were not there. K¤À¸a told Arjuna

that he too essentially was timeless and that everyone else was as eternal,

as existent, as K¤À¸a was.

Similarly, we always think that we will not exist later, a conclusion that

calls for lamentation. This notion is also not true, K¤À¸a said. Whatever

form you take yourself to be, you definitely exist. As an individual j¢va or

¡tm¡, you definitely exist. The j¢vatva, individuality, may not exist later,

but as ¡tm¡ you will always exist. Because the j¢vatva goes when a person is

enlightened, only ¡tm¡ is meant to be taken here. It is in this sense that

K¤À¸a said to Arjuna 'There was never a time when I was not, there was never

a time when you were not, nor was there ever a time when all these leaders

were not. Similarly, there will never be a time when all of us will not be.'

Does this mean, then, that this feud will continue forever because all these

¡tm¡s are going to be eternally there? No, the use of the plural here was

only with reference to forms (up¡dhis ). There was never a time when we were

not there. Nor will there ever be a time when we will not be there. We can

use pots and pot space as an example - the pots will come and go, but all

the pot spaces will always be there because there is only one space. The

words used in this verse - 'I' (aham), 'you' (tvam), 'we' (vayam), 'kings'

(jan¡dhip¡Å) - are all with reference to the bodies seemingly enclosing one

¡tm¡, like many pots enclosing one space.

ËTMËS ARE NOT MANY

áa´kara makes this important observation here in the last line of his

commentary, bh¡Àya - 'deha-bheda-anuv¤tty¡ bahuvacanam, na

¡tma-bheda-abhipr¡ye¸a - the plural has been used here with reference to the

various bodies and not with reference to the one ¡tm¡, the self.' The people

standing before K¤À¸a and Arjuna all had different physical bodies. Only

from the standpoint of the physical bodies, there is plurality, not from the

standpoint of ¡tm¡. There are no differences in ¡tm¡. It is not that a

K¤À¸a-¡tm¡ existed, an Arjuna-¡tm¡ existed and other ¡tm¡s existed and all

of these having existed before will continue to exist forever. That is not

the contention here at all.

Ëtm¡s are not many; there is only one ¡tm¡. Ëtm¡ that is not subject to

time, nitya-¡tm¡ being without form and attributes, can only be one. Anitya,

that which is subject to time, means anything that has a form with

attributes, with an up¡dhi. Only then can it be subject to time. But an ¡tm¡

that is subject to time is not the ¡tm¡ we are talking about. Ëtm¡ is the

very basis, the adhiÀh¡na, of time and therefore is not subject to time.

Because it is not subject to time, it is nitya.

Because the forms, up¡dhis, are many, there are many people, whereas ¡tm¡ is

one whole consciousness, caitanya, not bound by time. In that consciousness

alone is my mind, your mind, and any other mind. These minds differ, as do

the bodies. When we count, the bodies are many, but not from the standpoint

of consciousness, cit. Thus, what is necessary is the negation of a notion.

Instead of telling Arjuna that ¡tm¡ is nitya, thereby creating a concept in

his mind, K¤À¸a removed the notion of his being time-bound. When we are told

that ¡tm¡ is eternal, we think of ¡tm¡ as having a long, long life. Here,

instead, the concept of ¡tm¡ being time-bound is knocked off; it is negated.

There was never a time when I, you, or anyone else was not. Nor will there

be a time when we will not be, ¡tm¡ being timeless. Since you cannot cry for

the timeless, ¡tm¡ is not a cause for sorrow; it is a¿ocya. An¡tm¡ alone is

subject to change; it is anitya. Even if you want to stop this present

second, you cannot; because it is already gone. Therefore, crying for an¡tm¡

is foolish. Both ¡tm¡ and an¡tm¡, therefore, are a¿ocya.

Anything time-bound is always time-bound. You cannot expect constancy from

something whose nature is change itself. If you are aggrieved or sad because

something that changes by nature is non-constant, what you need is proper

understanding of the nature of ¡tm¡ and an¡tm¡, neither of which is a matter

for sorrow. Either way you take it, this fact remains. Therefore, the first

line of the previous verse becomes increasingly true as our understanding of

¡tm¡ and an¡tm¡ increases.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Swamini Brahmaprakasananda:

 

pranams,

 

Thanks for posting Swami Dayanandaji's commentary on

Verses 11 & 12.

 

First, please do not feel sad for things for which we

shouldn't grieve for. When appearance of words in the

screen becomes imperfect, it helps us to pay more

attention! Honestly, I paid more attention to read

and consequently able to understand better.

 

Swamiji's commentary contains the most eloquent

description to many complicated Vedantic terms. His

description of human dharma (true human nature) is

quite complete and thorough. Most important, he

explains why and how an expression of sorrow and

happiness becomes an integral part of human nature.

Swamiji also cautions that we should keep our

discriminating intellect alert all the time so that we

can grieve and enjoy for the right occasion and time!

So much more can be said and written on this excellent

but long commentary on these two important verses. On

the other hand, I want to leave it to the members to

read, understand and make their own judgement.

 

Finally, I want to request every member to take some

time and read this commentary. I assure that the time

you spend will be quite rewarding and will certainly

help you deal with daily life lot better. Those who

are serious on Gita Satsang and those who want to

understand the purest form of Vedanta, I strongly

recommend them to read the referenced commentary.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

--- Geeta Iyer <mithyaa wrote:

> Dear Ram Chandran,

> Here it is. I feel so bad to see how this looks on

> this screen. This has

> been the major deterrant. I will later send you a

> small write up about

> myself. I have edited and prepared this entire

> commentary of Swami

> Dayanandaji and it looks so good witha all the

> formatting and looks so bad

> on this that I didn't send you. I do read some of

> your discussions and

> marvel at amount of material all of you put up! May

> be now and then I will

> join your discussions!