BG Sloka 2.12 from C.M. Padmanabhacharya's book

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Hari bhaktas:

 

As I had written in my previous mail, I have given below the content (sample) for one Geeta verse 2.12 (chapter 2, verse 12) from the book, "A Critical Study of Bhagavad Geeta by Sri C.M. Padmanabhacharya", (pages containing the publisher info is missing).

na tvevAhaM jAtu nAsaM na tvam.h neme janAdhipaaH .na chaiva na bhavishhyAmassarve vayamataH param.h .. 2\-12..

 

na tu --- nor

aham.h--- I

jAtu---at any time

nAsaM---was I not

natvaM---nor you

na ime -----nor these

janAdhipAH ----princes of men

na cha eva---- nor certainly

nabhaviShyAmaH ----shall we cease to be

sarve vayaM---- all of us

ataH param.h----hereafter

 

"Verily, never was I not, nor you, nor these princes of men; nor, verily, shall any of us cease to be hereafter.'

 

This verse lays down the eternality of souls & says that God & Jeevas (individual souls) have always existed in the past & will continue to exist for ever.

 

Those who accept from Vedantha the eternality of souls & doubt it of other souls, will read the reference of God's eternality as made for comparism. Just as I, the Supreme God, am known to have always existed, so you & they have existed before & will persist for ever. Ramanujacharya thus contrues the verse. Sri Madhwa is also of the same view. With regard to those who dispute the eternality of God as well as of souls, the verse is to be understood as laying down the ever lasting character of both.

 

The query may occur whether anyone who has accepted God from Vedantha will still find room to doubt the eternality of souls. Such a doubt is however not impossible. Vedanta declares God, the eternal of eternals (nityonityAnAm.h). Eternality & infinty don't admit of degrees. A thing can be either finite in time or not. There can be no third alternative. Hence the doubt that God being eternal, Jeevas who are said to be not eternal in the same sense are not really such at all. This doubt is met by Sri Krishna who declares all souls to be as eternal in point of time as God Himself.

 

This is the famous question of to be or not to be, tackled at the very threshold. Do we live after death?

 

Max Muller infers the immortality of souls from the irrespressible desire for existence, implanted in every being Nature makes no mistakes. It never mocks or shams. The instinct is there & for a purpose. It is the beacon light of a great truth. Not only do we abide for ever, being SAT = essence, we are also CHIT = knowledge, & ANANDA = bliss. There is no being that is not ever eager to know, to have more light. nor one which does not long for happiness. These intuitive longings point to a great truth.

 

The next great truth laid stress on in the verse under comment is the oneness of God & the multiplicity of souls, Sri Krishna speaks of Himself & the many men around. He refers to all the jeevas of the Universe.

 

This reference in the plural (janAdhipAH) is a hard nut for the Monist. Sankaracharya observers that the plurality is to be understood as referring to the multiplicity of bodies, though the soul is throughout one & the same. This idea is elaborated by Sankarananda who goes into a very long note & concludes by saying that Arjuna was told not to feel sorrow because the Universe is truly Brahman in truth & in essence.

 

But the verse as it stands is utterly opposed to this view. The plural assertion stares us in the face. As Desikar points out, the verse strikes at the Buddhist who views the souls as of the same creed (AgamApAyivAdinaH) & at the Monists who think that plurality of souls is untrue.

 

Shankarananda observes that Brahma himself cannot reconcile an infinity of souls in space & time, with their infinity in number. But neither Ramanujacharya nor Sri Madhwa says that each soul is infinite in space. They hold that souls are countless & atomic.

 

But wh could not Sri Krishna have made the plural assertion with reference only to the multiplicity of bodies? No; this is impossible. It is difficult to conceive that Sri Krishna began the teachings in words that assert plurality if he meant to say the very opposite. If he meant to say that all were one, & hence, that there was no occasion for grief, why not say so? Why not lay down: "We are all one in truth & verily there is no sorrower, no sorrowed for & no sorrow" ? Was he deficient in exoression, and did he teach dualism when he meant Monism & leave Arjuna to wist his words & distil or evolve Monism out of them?

 

If Sri Krishna taught Monism in fact, the doubt arises whether he could be a Teacher at all. Being an Iswara who had never had any delusions such as may be possible in the case of human seers like Suka. He was an Advaita-gnanin sees no outer world at all. A human seer who has realized Advaita might even after vision & realization be a teacher, because it is said he had been a deluded moral before, had had personal experience of Samsara, so that this experience of difference might haunt him still. But a seer who is Iswara stands admittedly on a different footing as he has had no experience of Samsara & ignorance. Hence Sri Krishna of realized unity is inherently incapable of being a Teacher.

 

 

 

bhAratIramaNamukhyaprANAntargata shrI kR^iShNArpanamasthu