Changes

cause of one's changing his position from one tree to another or from one body to another. The jiva soul is struggling very hard on the tree of the material body, but as soon as he agrees to accept the other bird as the supreme spiritual master--as Arjuna agreed to do by voluntary surrender unto Krsna for instruction-- the subordinate bird immediately becomes free from all lamentations. Both the Katha Upanisad and Svetasvatara Upanisad confirm this: samane vrkse puruso nimagno 'nisaya socati muhyamanah justam yada pasyaty anyam isam asya mahimanam iti vita-sokah "Although the two birds are in the same tree, the eating bird is fully engrossed with anxiety and moroseness as the enjoyer of the fruits of the tree. But if in some way or other he turns his face to his friend who is the Lord and knows His glories--at once the suffering bird becomes free from all anxieties." Arjuna has now turned his face towards his eternal friend, Krsna, and is understanding the Bhagavad-gita from Him. And thus, hearing from Krsna, he can understand the supreme glories of the Lord and be free from lamentation. <blockquote>नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः । न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुतः ॥२- २३॥</blockquote><blockquote>अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च । नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयं सनातनः ॥२- २४॥</blockquote><blockquote>nainaṁ chindanti śastrāṇi nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ na cainaṁ kledayanty āpo na śoṣayati mārutaḥ ॥ 2-23॥</blockquote><blockquote>acchedyo ’yam adāhyo ’yam akledyo ’śoṣya eva ca nityaḥ sarva-gataḥ sthāṇur acalo ’yaṁ sanātanaḥ ॥ 2-24 ॥</blockquote>"The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor dried by the wind."  "This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same." The concept of indestructibility of the soul that was already spoken from 11 to 17 is being reiterated here for the sake of emphasis. Soul cannot be cleaved, burnt, wetted or dryed by weapons, fire, water and air respectively. It is not capable of being pervaded by them and cleaving, burning, wetting and drying are actions which can take place only by pervading a substance. Krishna says the same thing in both verses 23 and 24, only with a different wording. Why?? Because, this is important and he wants to reemphasize the truth of such import, by repeating and stressing on it. No Weapons can cut this soul! Fire cannot burn this soul! Water cannot drown or destroy this soul! Air cannot dry or destroy this soul! Why? Because soul is pervaded inside everything! Now a question will arise - Isn't this pervasion, omnipresence a characterisitic of only Paramatma?? Not really. Paramatma is indeed omnipresent, but Jeevatma also has pervasion(sarvagatah). The significant difference is that, numerous jeevatmas pervaded throughout the substances of this world and at any single time, single place, a jeevatma can only pervade only one place, unlike Paramatma who pervades across space, time and place. Now, Arjuna has another doubt. Ok, a soul cannot be cut, burnt or destroyed in any way. But, will a soul will subject to perishment over course of time? Will it change its nature, svabhavam over time?? Krishna says NO. Self is eternal. It is Stable, Immovable (achalah) and primeval (Puratanah). Another important point here is that Krishna says Self is always having knowledge(achalah) and it doesn't change or get any new knowledge. What makes humans and other beings behave differently is due to this knowledge being hidden or covered due to karmas, just like a Sun gets temporarily obscured by clouds. Though the two slokas appear to be repetitive, the 23rd sloka talks of implements, if any, to destroy atman and the next sloka says the atman is indestructible. It is our experience in our schools also that important points are reiterated by teachers so that they are remembered always. Here, Sri Krishna also a Teacher par excellence, wants Arjuna to remember these noble qualities of atman, and so reiterates. This will clear any doubts Arjuna has. In the first place, He says that no weapons are there to cut the atman. Fire cannot burn it. Water cannot wet it. Here it should be understood that the atman couldn t be  dissolved by water. Air cannot dry it. In the next sloka Sri Krishna says about the everlasting nature of atman, which we had seen earlier. But, in addition He makes another statement that atman is pervading or permeating all over. We have heard that only Paramatma or God only is all pervading and omni present. How, then, atman can have this quality? The interpretation by elders is that when an atman is in a body, by its power of wisdom or knowledge it is pervading in the entire body without a gap. Same atman when takes another body as its residence, pervades that body fully. Like this many bodies are fully pervaded by the atman, at different times. This is a major difference between the Paramatma and the Jeevatma. While, the former permeates all bodies always and simultaneously, the latter occupies different bodies at different times. It is said that certain yogis have that power to have their atman present in more than one body at the same time. Normally, atman is present in one body only. Arjuna accepts that it is all right the atman cannot be dissolved by water or burnt by fire and so on, but it is possible, he doubts, that the atman might fade on its own and disappear. Sri Krishna says that the eternalness is natural to atman. Still not convinced, Arjuna feels that the atman may change its characters with time. He wants to know whether atman s swabhavam or characteristics undergo change. Sri Krishna says that the swabhavam of atman is gyana or intellect. In other words it is gyana swaroopy, a personification of wisdom. This never changes. A fresh doubt comes in the mind of Arjuna. We find knowledge is neither uniform nor complete and we take efforts to develop. So how it is justified to say that the knowledge of soul is not changing? Our elders have explained this. All atman have total wisdom but when in a body, the knowledge exhibited is limited by the past karmas. So the brightness is reduced by the karmas. We dig the earth at a place for water. Water gushes out. Water was already present there and by digging at the right place the water sprang up. Similarly, the gyana or knowledge is already in the soul and by our efforts we try to bring out and become more knowledgeable. Like Sunshine being reduced by the clouds or the umbrella. So, the atman s gyana is also permanent.

cause of one's changing his position from one tree to another or from one body to another. The jiva soul is struggling very hard on the tree of the material body, but as soon as he agrees to accept the other bird as the supreme spiritual master--as Arjuna agreed to do by voluntary surrender unto Krsna for instruction-- the subordinate bird immediately becomes free from all lamentations. Both the Katha Upanisad and Svetasvatara Upanisad confirm this: samane vrkse puruso nimagno 'nisaya socati muhyamanah justam yada pasyaty anyam isam asya mahimanam iti vita-sokah "Although the two birds are in the same tree, the eating bird is fully engrossed with anxiety and moroseness as the enjoyer of the fruits of the tree. But if in some way or other he turns his face to his friend who is the Lord and knows His glories--at once the suffering bird becomes free from all anxieties." Arjuna has now turned his face towards his eternal friend, Krsna, and is understanding the Bhagavad-gita from Him. And thus, hearing from Krsna, he can understand the supreme glories of the Lord and be free from lamentation. <blockquote>नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः । न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुतः ॥२- २३॥</blockquote><blockquote>अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च । नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयं सनातनः ॥२- २४॥</blockquote><blockquote>nainaṁ chindanti śastrāṇi nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ na cainaṁ kledayanty āpo na śoṣayati mārutaḥ ॥ 2-23॥</blockquote><blockquote>acchedyo ’yam adāhyo ’yam akledyo ’śoṣya eva ca nityaḥ sarva-gataḥ sthāṇur acalo ’yaṁ sanātanaḥ ॥ 2-24 ॥</blockquote>"The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor dried by the wind."  "This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same." The concept of indestructibility of the soul that was already spoken from 11 to 17 is being reiterated here for the sake of emphasis. Soul cannot be cleaved, burnt, wetted or dryed by weapons, fire, water and air respectively. It is not capable of being pervaded by them and cleaving, burning, wetting and drying are actions which can take place only by pervading a substance. Krishna says the same thing in both verses 23 and 24, only with a different wording. Why?? Because, this is important and he wants to reemphasize the truth of such import, by repeating and stressing on it. No Weapons can cut this soul! Fire cannot burn this soul! Water cannot drown or destroy this soul! Air cannot dry or destroy this soul! Why? Because soul is pervaded inside everything! Now a question will arise - Isn't this pervasion, omnipresence a characterisitic of only Paramatma?? Not really. Paramatma is indeed omnipresent, but Jeevatma also has pervasion(sarvagatah). The significant difference is that, numerous jeevatmas pervaded throughout the substances of this world and at any single time, single place, a jeevatma can only pervade only one place, unlike Paramatma who pervades across space, time and place. Now, Arjuna has another doubt. Ok, a soul cannot be cut, burnt or destroyed in any way. But, will a soul will subject to perishment over course of time? Will it change its nature, svabhavam over time?? Krishna says NO. Self is eternal. It is Stable, Immovable (achalah) and primeval (Puratanah). Another important point here is that Krishna says Self is always having knowledge(achalah) and it doesn't change or get any new knowledge. What makes humans and other beings behave differently is due to this knowledge being hidden or covered due to karmas, just like a Sun gets temporarily obscured by clouds. Though the two slokas appear to be repetitive, the 23rd sloka talks of implements, if any, to destroy atman and the next sloka says the atman is indestructible. It is our experience in our schools also that important points are reiterated by teachers so that they are remembered always. Here, Sri Krishna also a Teacher par excellence, wants Arjuna to remember these noble qualities of atman, and so reiterates. This will clear any doubts Arjuna has. In the first place, He says that no weapons are there to cut the atman. Fire cannot burn it. Water cannot wet it. Here it should be understood that the atman couldn t be  dissolved by water. Air cannot dry it. In the next sloka Sri Krishna says about the everlasting nature of atman, which we had seen earlier. But, in addition He makes another statement that atman is pervading or permeating all over. We have heard that only Paramatma or God only is all pervading and omni present. How, then, atman can have this quality? The interpretation by elders is that when an atman is in a body, by its power of wisdom or knowledge it is pervading in the entire body without a gap. Same atman when takes another body as its residence, pervades that body fully. Like this many bodies are fully pervaded by the atman, at different times. This is a major difference between the Paramatma and the Jeevatma. While, the former permeates all bodies always and simultaneously, the latter occupies different bodies at different times. It is said that certain yogis have that power to have their atman present in more than one body at the same time. Normally, atman is present in one body only. Arjuna accepts that it is all right the atman cannot be dissolved by water or burnt by fire and so on, but it is possible, he doubts, that the atman might fade on its own and disappear. Sri Krishna says that the eternalness is natural to atman. Still not convinced, Arjuna feels that the atman may change its characters with time. He wants to know whether atman s swabhavam or characteristics undergo change. Sri Krishna says that the swabhavam of atman is gyana or intellect. In other words it is gyana swaroopy, a personification of wisdom. This never changes. A fresh doubt comes in the mind of Arjuna. We find knowledge is neither uniform nor complete and we take efforts to develop. So how it is justified to say that the knowledge of soul is not changing? Our elders have explained this. All atman have total wisdom but when in a body, the knowledge exhibited is limited by the past karmas. So the brightness is reduced by the karmas. We dig the earth at a place for water. Water gushes out. Water was already present there and by digging at the right place the water sprang up. Similarly, the gyana or knowledge is already in the soul and by our efforts we try to bring out and become more knowledgeable. Like Sunshine being reduced by the clouds or the umbrella. So, the atman s gyana is also permanent.

2-25: avyakto ayam! acintyo ayam! avikAryo  ayam! ucyate tasmad evam viditva-enam na-anusocitum arhasi Krishna continues to emphasize the nature of soul - Avayaktoyam, Achintyoyam, Avikaaroyam. In this verse Lord Krishna gives additional reasons why one should never grieve for the soul. Because the soul is unmanifest it is not able to be cut or burned like objects which are manifest in this world and being unmanifest it is inconceivable as it is not possible to equate it with the form or nature of anything that one could imagine in the material existence. Being unable to imagine the constitution of the soul indicates it is immutable because it is devoid of any process of modification for example milk transforming to youghurt. Therfore comprehending the nature and quality of the soul as enunciated above one should not be under the delusion of lamentation. There are three sources of knowledge - Pratyaksham (Perception), Anumaanam (inference), Shabdham(thru other sources e.g. Vedas). So, whatever thing you take in this world, the three sources of knowledge will tell that it is perishable. But, for Atma(soul), there is nothing which tells it is perishable - Avyakta-Ayam. Krishna says soul is Achintyoyam - i.e it cannot even be conceived. Krishna says soul is Avikaaroyam - AviKaaryaam i.e it is unchanging. e.g take an example. Body can be felt, perceived , while soul cannot be felt through Senses. And neither cannot it be infered i.e by looking at something and then saying soul can be perished. Another example is, even though a Lamp is seen through pratyaksham as one light which is glowing, by inference we can see that it consists of wick, oil which is getting exhausted. But, for soul neither through pratyaksham, nor through inference can we say that soul is temporary. The word avyaktah means invisible or imperceivable this is because the eternal soul being totally transcendental to the material existence cannot be practically examined as can objects which possess qualities of a physical nature. The word acintyah means inconceivable because the eternal soul is impossible to perceive by the mind and the senses being in every way transcendental to the material substratum which is what the consciousness of the living entities base their understanding on. The eternal soul differs from all other existences and levels of existence is in transcendence. Therefore it is avikaryah unchangeable and immutable. The Supreme Lord Krishna instructs that by knowing the eternal soul to be immortal there is no cause for grief.  

<blockquote>अव्यक्तोऽयमचिन्त्योऽयमविकार्योऽयमुच्यते । तस्मादेवं विदित्वैनं नानुशोचितुमर्हसि ॥२- २५॥</blockquote><blockquote>avyakto ’yam acintyo ’yam avikāryo ’yam ucyate tasmād evaṁ viditvainaṁ nānuśocitum arhasi ॥ 2-25 ॥</blockquote>

 

Krishna continues to emphasize the nature of soul - Avayaktoyam, Achintyoyam, Avikaaroyam. In this verse Lord Krishna gives additional reasons why one should never grieve for the soul. Because the soul is unmanifest it is not able to be cut or burned like objects which are manifest in this world and being unmanifest it is inconceivable as it is not possible to equate it with the form or nature of anything that one could imagine in the material existence. Being unable to imagine the constitution of the soul indicates it is immutable because it is devoid of any process of modification for example milk transforming to youghurt. Therfore comprehending the nature and quality of the soul as enunciated above one should not be under the delusion of lamentation. There are three sources of knowledge - Pratyaksham (Perception), Anumaanam (inference), Shabdham(thru other sources e.g. Vedas). So, whatever thing you take in this world, the three sources of knowledge will tell that it is perishable. But, for Atma(soul), there is nothing which tells it is perishable - Avyakta-Ayam. Krishna says soul is Achintyoyam - i.e it cannot even be conceived. Krishna says soul is Avikaaroyam - AviKaaryaam i.e it is unchanging. e.g take an example. Body can be felt, perceived , while soul cannot be felt through Senses. And neither cannot it be infered i.e by looking at something and then saying soul can be perished. Another example is, even though a Lamp is seen through pratyaksham as one light which is glowing, by inference we can see that it consists of wick, oil which is getting exhausted. But, for soul neither through pratyaksham, nor through inference can we say that soul is temporary. The word avyaktah means invisible or imperceivable this is because the eternal soul being totally transcendental to the material existence cannot be practically examined as can objects which possess qualities of a physical nature. The word acintyah means inconceivable because the eternal soul is impossible to perceive by the mind and the senses being in every way transcendental to the material substratum which is what the consciousness of the living entities base their understanding on. The eternal soul differs from all other existences and levels of existence is in transcendence. Therefore it is avikaryah unchangeable and immutable. The Supreme Lord Krishna instructs that by knowing the eternal soul to be immortal there is no cause for grief.  

 

 

2-26: atha-ca-enam nitya-jatam nityam va manyase mrtam tathapi tvam maha-baho na-enam socitum arhasi "If, however, you think that the soul [or the symptoms of life] is always born and dies forever, you still have no reason to lament, O mighty-armed." In the previous slokas, Krishna emphasized the body is different from Soul and says to Arjuna not to worry about this temporary body and fight in the war. . But in this sloka and the next two slokas, Krishna indulges in "Adbhukgamavadam" , where he changes tact , In this you argue your point agreeing with the point what your opponent is imagining. So, Sri Krishna argues assuming that the body and soul are same, as thought by Arjuna. If both are same also Arjuna should not mourn at the killing of Bheeshma or Drona. Because, as the body falls, the soul also dies according to the assumption of Arjuna. He should not now worry where the soul is going, to hell or heaven, as the soul is no longer there after the body is slain. So, here he says, Arjuna .. Ok, even if you consider Atma is identical with body and is "NityaJatam"(constantly born) and "NityamMurtam" (Constantly dying), even then (tatah pi), you should not feel grief. Why? The only constant in this body is CHANGE! We don't always remain a kid, a boy,a youth or so on. Even things around us, change constantly! Now, Arjuna says, he is not worried about change, but death. Krishna says, why worry about death? Arjuna says, he is worried to be separated from everybody or others separating and the unknown stage after death. Krishna laughs and says, if Arjuna is considering body and soul as one and the same, what is there to worry about death, because once the body perishes, it's the end of body and soul! This is a good example of how ignorance can cloud us with fear. For e.g. when we get hurt etc, we are scared, but the expert Medics are calm and repair us without any fear. A surgeon is not scared to operate or seeing blood etc, but we are scared. Why? Because the surgeon is an expert. This shows that ignorance is the root of this fear. Another reason is "experience".. Lack of awareness is also another reason for fear. For eg. if we are familiar with a misery or a disease etc, it is no longer a reason for fear. So, if Arjuna thinks body and soul are one and the same, change is inevitable and there is no reason to worry. Similarly, the question of Swargam, Narakam doesn't arise, because if Arjuna considers body and soul are one and the same, there is no swargam, Narakam. Arjuna now has another doubt - "We" know the change in One body i.e from infant to old age, but when we shed one body and take another body, we are not aware of the old body and that is a reason for fear, since the past and future are unknown. Krishna responds that, if we remember every past life, then we will end up being inundated with past memories and past relationships, which will end us drowned in samasaram, without any chance of redemption. Only great yogis and gnaanis have this power of rememberance, since it doesn't disturb them. So, Krishna says that birth and death are inevitable for the body, whose nature is modification and there is no need to feel grief. Krsna sarcastically addressed Arjuna as maha-bahu, mighty-armed, because He, at least, did not accept the theory of the Vaibhasikas (a school of philosophy which does not accept soul), which leaves aside the Vedic wisdom. As a ksatriya, Arjuna belonged to the Vedic culture, and it behooved him to continue to follow its principles.  

2-26: atha-ca-enam nitya-jatam nityam va manyase mrtam tathapi tvam maha-baho na-enam socitum arhasi "If, however, you think that the soul [or the symptoms of life] is always born and dies forever, you still have no reason to lament, O mighty-armed." In the previous slokas, Krishna emphasized the body is different from Soul and says to Arjuna not to worry about this temporary body and fight in the war. . But in this sloka and the next two slokas, Krishna indulges in "Adbhukgamavadam" , where he changes tact , In this you argue your point agreeing with the point what your opponent is imagining. So, Sri Krishna argues assuming that the body and soul are same, as thought by Arjuna. If both are same also Arjuna should not mourn at the killing of Bheeshma or Drona. Because, as the body falls, the soul also dies according to the assumption of Arjuna. He should not now worry where the soul is going, to hell or heaven, as the soul is no longer there after the body is slain. So, here he says, Arjuna .. Ok, even if you consider Atma is identical with body and is "NityaJatam"(constantly born) and "NityamMurtam" (Constantly dying), even then (tatah pi), you should not feel grief. Why? The only constant in this body is CHANGE! We don't always remain a kid, a boy,a youth or so on. Even things around us, change constantly! Now, Arjuna says, he is not worried about change, but death. Krishna says, why worry about death? Arjuna says, he is worried to be separated from everybody or others separating and the unknown stage after death. Krishna laughs and says, if Arjuna is considering body and soul as one and the same, what is there to worry about death, because once the body perishes, it's the end of body and soul! This is a good example of how ignorance can cloud us with fear. For e.g. when we get hurt etc, we are scared, but the expert Medics are calm and repair us without any fear. A surgeon is not scared to operate or seeing blood etc, but we are scared. Why? Because the surgeon is an expert. This shows that ignorance is the root of this fear. Another reason is "experience".. Lack of awareness is also another reason for fear. For eg. if we are familiar with a misery or a disease etc, it is no longer a reason for fear. So, if Arjuna thinks body and soul are one and the same, change is inevitable and there is no reason to worry. Similarly, the question of Swargam, Narakam doesn't arise, because if Arjuna considers body and soul are one and the same, there is no swargam, Narakam. Arjuna now has another doubt - "We" know the change in One body i.e from infant to old age, but when we shed one body and take another body, we are not aware of the old body and that is a reason for fear, since the past and future are unknown. Krishna responds that, if we remember every past life, then we will end up being inundated with past memories and past relationships, which will end us drowned in samasaram, without any chance of redemption. Only great yogis and gnaanis have this power of rememberance, since it doesn't disturb them. So, Krishna says that birth and death are inevitable for the body, whose nature is modification and there is no need to feel grief. Krsna sarcastically addressed Arjuna as maha-bahu, mighty-armed, because He, at least, did not accept the theory of the Vaibhasikas (a school of philosophy which does not accept soul), which leaves aside the Vedic wisdom. As a ksatriya, Arjuna belonged to the Vedic culture, and it behooved him to continue to follow its principles.  

2-27: jatasya hi dhruvo mrityur dhruvam janma mrtasya ca tasmad aparihArye rthe na  tvam socitum arhasi "One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament." Krishna says that whatever is originating, it's destruction is certain and whatever is perishable, it will inevitably originate. Arjuna now has a doubt. If he wins the war and whatever is born is going to perish, it means the win will also be temporary. So, why even battle?? Similarly, shouldn't a person who has recuperated from disease is happy, should he be, because his recuperation is ultimately temporary? Krishna responds saying that, this efforts are required for clearing of the trouble for that period, which is natural and there is no confusion or wrong about it. Similarly, it's Arjuna's responsibility to fight his way from the current situation, rather than running away. Now another doubt comes up - Is something coming up from nothing or is it coming up from something ; This two types of arguments are called - Sat-kaarya Vaadham and Asat-kaarya Vaadham. e.g. To take an analogy, it's the difference between Discovery and Invention. Discovery is something which is already there and been identified for use (eg> country, columbus discovering America). Invention is creating something which was not there previously (eg> Telephone). But, really speaking, the components of telephone was always there and it's only been arranged in a new way. e.g Wool.Thread strung together becomes a Cloth. Similarly, something can come out of something and nothing (this is Satkaarya Vaadham) and when it perishes, it doesn't go away. but is transformed. eg. when a pot is broken, even though the Pot is destroyed, it creates the clay (broken into clay pieces). Similarly, when a body perishes, it takes a different form. It is evident that death of the physical body is inevitable to whatever is born and that there is no way to escape from this physical termination of the body. Similarly rebirth is unavoidable once one's physical body has died. How can something which has been lost become again? It is conceivable that something which has already been to become again; but it is inconceivable for that which has never been to become. Therefore there is nothing that can come that has not been. What is known as birth and death is but just different modifications of an ever existing condition. Yarn and other materials exist but when they are woven into a fabric that is a particular arrangement of the yarn itself, it receives the name cloth in its modified state. Even the asat-karya-vadis who follow the fallacious hypothesis that existence comes from non-existence should admit the ever existing state, for what we know as cloth to them is a new creation but is factually the same old yarn only in a new form which has been created. It is not sagacious or well thought out to assume that a new substance has come into being simply because of a modified condition. Thus coming into existence and disappearing from existence are modified states of an ever existing reality. One of the conditions of this modified state is its appearance called birth and another condition being its diametric opposite is known as death which by disappearing this ever existing reality passes into. For a substance which is intrinsically metamorphic the process of modification is essential. As in the case of a clod of earth, transformed into clay, transformed into a pot, transformed into dust and transformed back to earth again. The manifestation of a subsequent condition is but a modification of a previous condition and that same subsequent condition becomes a prior condition of another subsequent condition. Reasoning in this way it can be understood that it is natural that successive modifications take place in regards to creation and destruction of physical bodies which cannot be avoided and there is no reason to lament due to this. If there is some slight grief which may be apparent by the passing from a prior modified state to a subsequent modified state even this grief need not arise in the case of living entities such as human beings because... and the next verse 28 clarifies why.

2-27: jatasya hi dhruvo mrityur dhruvam janma mrtasya ca tasmad aparihArye rthe na  tvam socitum arhasi "One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament." Krishna says that whatever is originating, it's destruction is certain and whatever is perishable, it will inevitably originate. Arjuna now has a doubt. If he wins the war and whatever is born is going to perish, it means the win will also be temporary. So, why even battle?? Similarly, shouldn't a person who has recuperated from disease is happy, should he be, because his recuperation is ultimately temporary? Krishna responds saying that, this efforts are required for clearing of the trouble for that period, which is natural and there is no confusion or wrong about it. Similarly, it's Arjuna's responsibility to fight his way from the current situation, rather than running away. Now another doubt comes up - Is something coming up from nothing or is it coming up from something ; This two types of arguments are called - Sat-kaarya Vaadham and Asat-kaarya Vaadham. e.g. To take an analogy, it's the difference between Discovery and Invention. Discovery is something which is already there and been identified for use (eg> country, columbus discovering America). Invention is creating something which was not there previously (eg> Telephone). But, really speaking, the components of telephone was always there and it's only been arranged in a new way. e.g Wool.Thread strung together becomes a Cloth. Similarly, something can come out of something and nothing (this is Satkaarya Vaadham) and when it perishes, it doesn't go away. but is transformed. eg. when a pot is broken, even though the Pot is destroyed, it creates the clay (broken into clay pieces). Similarly, when a body perishes, it takes a different form. It is evident that death of the physical body is inevitable to whatever is born and that there is no way to escape from this physical termination of the body. Similarly rebirth is unavoidable once one's physical body has died. How can something which has been lost become again? It is conceivable that something which has already been to become again; but it is inconceivable for that which has never been to become. Therefore there is nothing that can come that has not been. What is known as birth and death is but just different modifications of an ever existing condition. Yarn and other materials exist but when they are woven into a fabric that is a particular arrangement of the yarn itself, it receives the name cloth in its modified state. Even the asat-karya-vadis who follow the fallacious hypothesis that existence comes from non-existence should admit the ever existing state, for what we know as cloth to them is a new creation but is factually the same old yarn only in a new form which has been created. It is not sagacious or well thought out to assume that a new substance has come into being simply because of a modified condition. Thus coming into existence and disappearing from existence are modified states of an ever existing reality. One of the conditions of this modified state is its appearance called birth and another condition being its diametric opposite is known as death which by disappearing this ever existing reality passes into. For a substance which is intrinsically metamorphic the process of modification is essential. As in the case of a clod of earth, transformed into clay, transformed into a pot, transformed into dust and transformed back to earth again. The manifestation of a subsequent condition is but a modification of a previous condition and that same subsequent condition becomes a prior condition of another subsequent condition. Reasoning in this way it can be understood that it is natural that successive modifications take place in regards to creation and destruction of physical bodies which cannot be avoided and there is no reason to lament due to this. If there is some slight grief which may be apparent by the passing from a prior modified state to a subsequent modified state even this grief need not arise in the case of living entities such as human beings because... and the next verse 28 clarifies why.

2-28: avyaktadi-ni bhutani ! vyakta-madhyani bharata! avyakta-nidhanAny eva! tatra ka paridevana "The [five elements made] body is not capable of revealing the past [but] middle [present] revealed. Future not revealed, Oh! Bharatha, where is then need for grief?" All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when they are annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation? Note, slokas 26,27,28 are all based on the assumption that body and soul are the same and Krishna presenting that even assuming this false assumption is true, even then one should not get disturbed by the death or destruction of this body. Take for eg: Pot, clay, mud are three different forms of the same thing and one thing transforms into another in it's cycle of formation and destruction. Atleast for Pot, we know what form it will take (mud, clay etc), when it gets broken. But, for human, we wouldn't know for sure what it's future state be, after death. After death, it may take a better form. Arjuna asks, whether it's possible to know what the past or future states would be? Krishna responds that, we won't know our past or future, but only our present. This body which is made up of PanchaBhootams(Bhootani) is "Avyaaktaani" (unknown) in the past; Our current state(madhya) is known (Vyaktaani); Our future i.e after death (Nidhana) is unknown(Avyaktaani). So, there is no point in grieving about the future stage. Do remember that this sloka is based on the assumption that body and soul are same and Krishna is presenting it from this point of view and letting Arjuna know, even with this assumption, there is no point in grieving(paridevana) about future or past. Accepting that there are two classes of philosophers, one believing in the existence of soul and the other not believing in the existence of the soul, there is no cause for lamentation in either case. Nonbelievers in the existence of the soul are called atheists by followers of Vedic wisdom. Yet even if, for argument's sake, we accept the atheistic theory, there is still no cause for lamentation. Apart from the separate existence of the soul, the material elements remain unmanifested before creation. From this subtle state of unmanifestation comes manifestation, just as from ether, air is generated; from air, fire is generated; from fire, water is generated; and from water, earth becomes manifested. From the earth, many varieties of manifestations take place. Take, for example, a big skyscraper manifested from the earth. When it is dismantled, the manifestation becomes again unmanifested and remains as atoms in the ultimate stage. The law of conservation of energy remains, but in course of time things are manifested and unmanifested--that is the difference. Then what cause is there for lamentation either in the stage of manifestation or unmanifestation? Somehow or other, even in the unmanifested stage, things are not lost. Both at the beginning and at the end, all elements remain unmanifested, and only in the middle are they manifested, and this does not make any real material difference. And if we accept the Vedic conclusion as stated in the Bhagavad-gita (antavanta ime dehah) that these material bodies are perishable in due course of time (nityasyoktah saririnah) but that soul is eternal, then we must remember always that the body is like a dress; therefore why lament the changing of a dress? Why then is it seen that even men possessing intelligence lament in this world? It is simply due to ignorance about the true nature of the eternal soul. Having this theme in mind the abstruseness of the eternal soul is being given, in the next slokam (2.29).

2-28: avyaktadi-ni bhutani ! vyakta-madhyani bharata! avyakta-nidhanAny eva! tatra ka paridevana "The [five elements made] body is not capable of revealing the past [but] middle [present] revealed. Future not revealed, Oh! Bharatha, where is then need for grief?" All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when they are annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation? Note, slokas 26,27,28 are all based on the assumption that body and soul are the same and Krishna presenting that even assuming this false assumption is true, even then one should not get disturbed by the death or destruction of this body. Take for eg: Pot, clay, mud are three different forms of the same thing and one thing transforms into another in it's cycle of formation and destruction. Atleast for Pot, we know what form it will take (mud, clay etc), when it gets broken. But, for human, we wouldn't know for sure what it's future state be, after death. After death, it may take a better form. Arjuna asks, whether it's possible to know what the past or future states would be? Krishna responds that, we won't know our past or future, but only our present. This body which is made up of PanchaBhootams(Bhootani) is "Avyaaktaani" (unknown) in the past; Our current state(madhya) is known (Vyaktaani); Our future i.e after death (Nidhana) is unknown(Avyaktaani). So, there is no point in grieving about the future stage. Do remember that this sloka is based on the assumption that body and soul are same and Krishna is presenting it from this point of view and letting Arjuna know, even with this assumption, there is no point in grieving(paridevana) about future or past. Accepting that there are two classes of philosophers, one believing in the existence of soul and the other not believing in the existence of the soul, there is no cause for lamentation in either case. Nonbelievers in the existence of the soul are called atheists by followers of Vedic wisdom. Yet even if, for argument's sake, we accept the atheistic theory, there is still no cause for lamentation. Apart from the separate existence of the soul, the material elements remain unmanifested before creation. From this subtle state of unmanifestation comes manifestation, just as from ether, air is generated; from air, fire is generated; from fire, water is generated; and from water, earth becomes manifested. From the earth, many varieties of manifestations take place. Take, for example, a big skyscraper manifested from the earth. When it is dismantled, the manifestation becomes again unmanifested and remains as atoms in the ultimate stage. The law of conservation of energy remains, but in course of time things are manifested and unmanifested--that is the difference. Then what cause is there for lamentation either in the stage of manifestation or unmanifestation? Somehow or other, even in the unmanifested stage, things are not lost. Both at the beginning and at the end, all elements remain unmanifested, and only in the middle are they manifested, and this does not make any real material difference. And if we accept the Vedic conclusion as stated in the Bhagavad-gita (antavanta ime dehah) that these material bodies are perishable in due course of time (nityasyoktah saririnah) but that soul is eternal, then we must remember always that the body is like a dress; therefore why lament the changing of a dress? Why then is it seen that even men possessing intelligence lament in this world? It is simply due to ignorance about the true nature of the eternal soul. Having this theme in mind the abstruseness of the eternal soul is being given, in the next slokam (2.29).