BG 2.13
“
600+
“
600+
Devanagari
देहिनोऽस्मिन्यथा देहे कौमारं यौवनं जरा ।
तथा देहान्तरप्राप्तिर्धीरस्तत्र न मुह्यति ॥ १३ ॥
Verse text
dehino ’smin yathā dehe
kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā
tathā dehāntara-prāptir
dhīras tatra na muhyati
Synonyms
dehinaḥ
—
of the embodied
;
asmin
—
in this
;
yathā
—
as
;
dehe
—
in the body
;
kaumāram
—
boyhood
;
yauvanam
—
youth
;
jarā
—
old age
;
tathā
—
similarly
;
deha-antara
—
of transference of the body
;
prāptiḥ
—
achievement
;
dhīraḥ
—
the sober
;
tatra
—
thereupon
;
na
—
never
;
muhyati
—
is deluded.
Translation
As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.
Translation (Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura)
13. As the soul passes through boyhood, youth and old age, so it attains another body after death. The wise are not bewildered by this.
Translation (Baladeva Vidyabhusana)
13. As the soul passes through boyhood, youth and old age, so he attains another body at death. The wise are not bewildered by this.
Purport
Since every living entity is an individual soul, each is changing his body every moment, manifesting sometimes as a child, sometimes as a youth and sometimes as an old man. Yet the same spirit soul is there and does not undergo any change. This individual soul finally changes the body at death and transmigrates to another body; and since it is sure to have another body in the next birth – either material or spiritual – there was no cause for lamentation by Arjuna on account of death, neither for Bhīṣma nor for Droṇa, for whom he was so much concerned. Rather, he should rejoice for their changing bodies from old to new ones, thereby rejuvenating their energy. Such changes of body account for varieties of enjoyment or suffering, according to one’s work in life. So Bhīṣma and Droṇa, being noble souls, were surely going to have spiritual bodies in the next life, or at least life in heavenly bodies for superior enjoyment of material existence. So, in either case, there was no cause of lamentation.
Any man who has perfect knowledge of the constitution of the individual soul, the Supersoul, and nature – both material and spiritual – is called a dhīra, or a most sober man. Such a man is never deluded by the change of bodies.
The Māyāvādī theory of oneness of the spirit soul cannot be entertained, on the ground that the spirit soul cannot be cut into pieces as a fragmental portion. Such cutting into different individual souls would make the Supreme cleavable or changeable, against the principle of the Supreme Soul’s being unchangeable. As confirmed in the Gītā, the fragmental portions of the Supreme exist eternally ( sanātana ) and are called kṣara; that is, they have a tendency to fall down into material nature. These fragmental portions are eternally so, and even after liberation the individual soul remains the same – fragmental. But once liberated, he lives an eternal life in bliss and knowledge with the Personality of Godhead. The theory of reflection can be applied to the Supersoul, who is present in each and every individual body and is known as the Paramātmā. He is different from the individual living entity. When the sky is reflected in water, the reflections represent both the sun and the moon and the stars also. The stars can be compared to the living entities and the sun or the moon to the Supreme Lord. The individual fragmental spirit soul is represented by Arjuna, and the Supreme Soul is the Personality of Godhead Śrī Kṛṣṇa. They are not on the same level, as it will be apparent in the beginning of the Fourth Chapter. If Arjuna is on the same level with Kṛṣṇa, and Kṛṣṇa is not superior to Arjuna, then their relationship of instructor and instructed becomes meaningless. If both of them are deluded by the illusory energy ( māyā ), then there is no need of one being the instructor and the other the instructed. Such instruction would be useless because, in the clutches of māyā, no one can be an authoritative instructor. Under the circumstances, it is admitted that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord, superior in position to the living entity, Arjuna, who is a forgetful soul deluded by māyā.
Purport (Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura)
“One’s body becomes the object of affection as it is related to the soul (which is most dear to the self.) By relation with that body, one’s sons, brothers or other relatives become objects of affection. And by relationship to them, even their sons also become objects of affection. So when their bodies perish, there will certainly be lamentation.”
In answer to this, He speaks this verse. “In the body belonging to the jīva (dehinaḥ) one attains stages such as boyhood. After boyhood is destroyed one attains youth. When youth is destroyed one attains old age. In the same manner, one attains another body (after death). Just as (yathā) one does not lament for the destruction of the objects of affection in the form of boyhood and youth of the body which are related to the soul (and therefore dear), so (tathā) one should also not lament for the destruction of the object of affection, the body, which is also related to the soul.”
“But with the destruction of youth and attaining old age, one does lament.”
“But then again, with the destruction of boyhood and attainment of youth one rejoices. And with the destruction of worn out bodies of Bhīṣma and Droṇa, they will attain new bodies and will also become joyful.”
Another meaning is: Just as in one body a jīva attains various states such as boyhood, the same jīva attains various bodies life after life (and therefore one should not lament). [Note: In the first interpretation one should not lament because changes from boyhood to youth and change of body are all incidental to the ātmā which remains most dear. In the second interpretation one should not lament for the dead body because a person will get another body after death.]
Purport (Baladeva Vidyabhusana)
“In spite of the eternal nature of the souls distinct from the bodies of Bhīṣma and others, it is appropriate to lament for the bodies which are the places of enjoyment.”
The soul, which has many bodies in the past, present and future, has the three states of childhood, youth and old age while existing in the present body. Just as one does not lament at gaining a succession of bodies, related to the soul, and suitable for his enjoyment, with the destruction of a series of previous bodies, the acquisition of another body with the destruction of the present body should be a source of jubilation for you, rather than a source of lamentation. In this manner, Yayāti became joyful on gaining a youthful body. The intelligent person (dhīraḥ), one who knows the true nature of the maturing karmas upon the jīva in combination with his impressions (svabhāva) [Note: The impressions are the mechanism or cause of remembrance of experiences from previous lives, by which he shows attraction or repulsion to particular objects. This is distinct from karma, the material response to his previous actions. The karma creates situations for the jīva by giving him a body and circumstances in life. The jīva then chooses to act, but greatly influenced by the impressions, rather than scriptural knowledge. A person not influenced by those impressions or his karma but by true knowledge is a dhīra.] and body, is not bewildered by the change. It should be understood that dehinaḥ (of he who possesses the body) is in the singular to denote a class (and does not imply that there is only one soul in existence) since previously the plurality of souls was stated (you and all these kings.)
The following claim is made by proponents of one soul (ekātmā vāda).
eka eva viśuddhātmā tasyāvidyayāparicchinnasya tasyāṁ pratibimbitasya vā nānātmatvam
The pure ātmā is one only. It appears as many souls either by division or reflection, through ignorance.
The śruti says:
ākāśam ekaṁ hi yathā ghaṭādiṣu pṛthag bhavet,
tathātmaiko hy anekastho hy jalādhāreṣv ivāṁśumān
Just as the one ether becomes separate entities in many pots, so the one ātmā becomes situated as many, as the sun is reflected on the substratum of water. Yajṣavalkya Saṁhitā, Yajur Veda, 3.4.144
The proponents of one soul claim that Kṛṣṇa speaks in the singular in this verse in order to teach oneness of the soul by rejection of plurality, since there is destruction of the false concept of plurality of souls through knowledge. This however is a foolish claim, because of the impossibility of dividing up a mass of consciousness by dull (and inferior) ignorance. Furthermore, even the proponents of one soul do not accept that the one Brahman can be the object of reflection or any action of anything else. [Note: Consciousness is a pure subject and never can become an object. It is not revealed by another object. Only Brahman exists. This is the advaita claim.] Also accepting a real division of the one soul would produce the fault of transformation in the soul, like breaking a rock with a chisel, which would contradict the soul’s unchangeable nature.
And it is impossible for the great formless Brahman to become reflected images (jīvas). Otherwise one would see reflections of space and the directions. [Note: Has anyone seen pure consciousness reflected in a mirror or water? Even material elements like akāśa which are formless and space (dik) cannot really be reflected in water or a mirror. What we see is caused by light and its product color. This is also explained in the commentary on Vedānta Sūtra 3.2.19.] The false proposition that this reflection is different from normal perception cannot be accepted (since the example was given from our perceptual experience to help us understand).
One can perceive a reflection of the sky only because of apprehending a group of glowing objects like constellations and planets within the sky shining on water. [Note: To say that the Brahman gets reflected as numerous jīvas, one would need a Brahman with qualities (sky with planets) that could be reflected and a substance like water (some real object other than brahman) upon which reflection takes place.]
Though the śruti refers to Brahman as ākāśa in such statements as ākāśam ekaṁ hi, mentioned above, this does not indicate a formless Brahman but rather paramātmā. When the śrutis speak of paramātmā as being like the ether or the sun they are proclaiming the many functions of paramātmā. Thus the word ākāśa used to describe the Lord is not contradictory.
Even the existence of an instructor of oneness is an impossibility. Does he know the truth or not? If he knows the truth—that there is only one ātmā—then the existence of someone to teach will not manifest. If he does not know the truth, then he is not in the position to teach knowledge of ātmā because of his ignorance. The argument that brahman can be the subject of bādhita anuvrtti, residual appearance of duality after it has been destroyed by knowledge, has already been rejected.
Surrender Unto Me
Arjuna is worried because he has to kill Bhisma, Drona and others. He is going to force them to die. So Krsna is telling him: "They cannot die because they are souls. And death is only a change of bodies, and this type of change of bodies isn't so rare because at one time Bhisma was a young boy, then a youth, then now, he is a old man. He has gone through so many changes of bodies. Death is just another change of body. Be sober, stop your lamentation because it is based on illusion!"
Arjuna might say: "But my relationship is with their bodies. So if they are killed, their bodies will be gone and I will be miserable".
Krsna's answer to that is:
[ 2‑ Performance of duty must not be effected by happiness and distress arising from sense perception. (14‑15) ]