2.16

।।2.16।। न असतः अविद्यमानस्य शीतोष्णादेः सकारणस्य न विद्यते नास्ति भावो भवनम् अस्तिता।।न हि शीतोष्णादि सकारणं प्रमाणैर्निरूप्यमाणं वस्तु सम्भवति। विकारो हि सः विकारश्च व्यभिचरति। यथा घटादिसंस्थानं चक्षुषा निरूप्यमाणं मृद्वयतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेरसत् तथा सर्वो विकारः कारणव्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेरसन्। जन्मप्रध्वंसाभ्यां प्रागूर्ध्वं च अनुपलब्धेः कार्यस्य घटादेः मृदादिकारणस्य च तत्कारणव्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेरसत्त्वम्।।तदसत्त्वे सर्वाभावप्रसङ्ग इति चेत् न सर्वत्र बुद्धिद्वयोपलब्धेः सद्बुद्धिरसद्बुद्धिरिति। यद्विषया बुद्धिर्न व्यभिचरति तत् सत् यद्विषया व्यभिचरति तदसत् इति सदसद्विभागे बुद्धितन्त्रे स्थिते सर्वत्र द्वे बुद्धी सर्वैरुपलभ्येते समानाधिकरणे न नीलोत्पलवत् सन् घटः सन् पटः सन् हस्ती इति। एवं सर्वत्र। तयोर्बुद्धयोः घटादिबुद्धिः व्यभिचरति। तथा च दर्शितम्। न तु सद्बुद्धिः। तस्मात् घटादिबुद्धिविषयः असन् व्यभिचारात् न तु सद्बुद्धिविषयः अव्यभिचारात्।।घटे विनष्टे घटबुद्धौ व्यभिचरन्त्यां सद्बुद्धिरपि व्यभिचरतीति चेत् न पटादावपि सद्बुद्धिदर्शनात्। विशेषणविषयैव सा सद्बुद्धिः।।सद्बुद्धिवत् घटबुद्धिरपि घटान्तरे दृश्यत इति चेत् न पटादौ अदर्शनात्।।सद्बुद्धिरपि नष्टे घटे न दृश्यत इति चेत् न विशेष्याभावात्। सद्बुद्धिः विशेषणविषया सती विशेष्याभावे विशेषणानुपपत्तौ किंविषया स्यात् न तु पुनः सद्बुद्धेः विषयाभावात्।।एकाधिकरणत्वं घटादिविशेष्याभावे न युक्तमिति चेत् न इदमुदकम् इति मरीच्यादौ अन्यतराभावेऽपि सामानाधिकरण्यदर्शनात्।।तस्माद्देहादेः द्वन्द्वस्य च सकारणस्य असतो न विद्यते भाव इति। तथा सत श्च आत्मनः अभावः अविद्यमानता न विद्यते सर्वत्र अव्यभिचारात् इति अवोचाम।।एवम् आत्मानात्मनोः सदसतोः उभयोरपि दृष्टः उपलब्धः अन्तो निर्णयः सत् सदेव असत् असदेवेति तु अनयोः यथोक्तयोः तत्त्वदर्शिभिः। तदिति सर्वनाम् सर्वं च ब्रह्म तस्य नाम तदिति तद्भावः तत्त्वम् ब्रह्मणो याथात्म्यम्। तत् द्रष्टुं शीलं येषां ते तत्त्वदर्शिनः तैः तत्त्वदर्शिभिः। त्वमपि तत्त्वदर्शिनां दृष्टिमाश्रित्य शोकं मोहं च हित्वा शीतोष्णादीनि नियतानियतरूपाणि द्वन्द्वानि विकारोऽयमसन्नेव मरीचिजलवन्मिथ्यावभासते इति मनसि निश्चित्य तितिक्षस्व इत्यभिप्रायः।।किं पुनस्तत् यत् सदेव सर्वदा इति उच्यते

Alignment

machine-validated; human review pending

Checksum

4d4c26f40f9f…

2.16 'The unreal,' that is, the body, can never come into being. 'The real,' that is, the self, can never cease to be. The finale about these, the body and the self, which can be experienced, has been realised correctly by the seers of the Truth. As analyis ends in conclusion, the term 'finale' is here used. The meaning is this: Non-existence (i.e., perishableness) is the real nature of the body which is in itself insentient. Existence (i.e., imperishableness) is the real nature of the self, which is sentient. [What follows is the justification of describing the body as 'unreal' and as having 'never come into being.'] Non-existence has, indeed, the nature of perishableness, and existence has the nature of imperishableness, as Bhagavan Parasara has said: 'O Brahmana, apart from conscious entity there does not exist any group of things anywhere and at any time. Thus have I taught you what is real existence - how conscious entity is real, and all else is unreal' (V. P., 2.12.43 - 45). 'The Supreme Reality is considered as imperishable by the wise. There is no doubt that what can be obtained from a perishable substance is also perishable' (Ibid., 2.14.24). 'That entity which even by a change in time cannot come to possess a difference through modification etc., is real. What is that entity, O King? (It is the self who retains Its knowledge)' (Ibid., 2.13.100). It is said here also: 'These bodies ৷৷. are said to have an end' (2.18) and 'Know That (the Atman) to be indestructible' (2.17). It is seen from this that this (i.e., perishableness of the body and imperishableness of the self) is the reason for the designating the Atman as 'existence' (Sattva) and body as 'non-existence' (Asvattva). This verse has no reference to the doctrine of Satkaryavada (i.e., the theory that effects are present in the cause), as such a theory has no relevance here. Arjuna is deluded about the true nature of the body and the self; so what ought to be taught to him in order to remove his delusion, is discrimination between these two - what is alified by perishablenss and what, by imperishableness. This (declaration) is introduced in the following way: 'For the dead, or for the living' (2.11). Again this poin is made clear immediately (by the words), 'Know that to be indestructible ৷৷.' (2.17) and 'These bodies ৷৷. are said to have an end' (2.18). How the imperishableness of the self is to be understood, Sri Krsna now teaches:

Alignment

machine-validated; human review pending

Checksum

c10b3132e2fe…

2.16 न not? असतः of the unreal? विद्यते is? भावः being? न not? अभावः nonbeing? विद्यते is? सतः of the real? उभयोः of the two? अपि also? दृष्टः (has been) seen? अन्तः the final truth? तु indeed? अनयोः of these? तत्त्वदर्शिभिः by the knowers of the Truth.Commentary -- The changeless? homogeneous Atman or the Self always exists. It is the only solid Reality. This phenomenal world of names and forms is ever changing. Hence it is unreal. The sage or the Jivanmukta is fully aware that the Self always exists and that this world is like a mirage. Through his Jnanachakshus or the eye of intuition? he directly cognises the Self. This world vanishes for him like the snake in the rope? after it has been seen that only the rope exists. He rejects the names and forms and takes the underlying Essence in all the names and forms? viz.? AstiBhatiPriya or Satchidananda or ExistenceKnowledgeBliss Absolute. Hence he is a Tattvadarshi or a knower of the Truth or the Essence.What is changing must be unreal. What is constant or permanent must be real.

Alignment

machine-validated; human review pending

Checksum

d00e778e3b66…