Changes

"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. <blockquote>जातस्य हि ध्रुवो मृत्युर्ध्रुवं जन्म मृतस्य च । तस्मादपरिहार्येऽर्थे न त्वं शोचितुमर्हसि ॥ २-२७॥</blockquote><blockquote>jātasya hi dhruvo mṛtyur dhruvaṁ janma mṛtasya ca tasmād aparihārye ’rthe na tvaṁ śocitum arhasi ॥ 2-27 ॥</blockquote>"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.<blockquote>अव्यक्तादीनि भूतानि व्यक्तमध्यानि भारत । अव्यक्तनिधनान्येव तत्र का परिदेवना ॥ २-२८॥</blockquote><blockquote>avyaktādīni bhūtāni vyakta-madhyāni bhārata avyakta-nidhanāny eva tatra kā paridevanā ॥ 2-28 ॥</blockquote>"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 <blockquote>आश्चर्यवत्पश्यति कश्चिदेन- माश्चर्यवद्वदति तथैव चान्यः । आश्चर्यवच्चैनमन्यः श‍ृणोति  श्रुत्वाप्येनं वेद न चैव कश्चित् ॥ २-२९॥</blockquote><blockquote>āścarya-vat paśyati kaścid enam āścarya-vad vadati tathaiva cānyaḥ āścarya-vac cainam anyaḥ śṛṇoti śrutvāpy enaṁ veda na caiva kaścit ॥ 2-29 ॥</blockquote>In the previous three slokas, Krishna expatiated about not being concerned about Body and how it is temporary. Arjuna is now baffled that he is unable to comprehend this reality and is still scared. All of us are in the same boat, including the great Jnaanis, even though the jnaanis are in a higher plane of understanding. The power of this bodily conception is very difficult to overcome. Krishna responds to this fear of Arjuna: This amazing (Aasharyavati ) nature of soul is known/seen (Pashchati) by only one among crores and only one among crores talks(Vadati) about it and then only one among crores hears (Shrunoti) about it and then only one among crores will really understand(veda) and realise the soul exists and that body is temporary. This shows that it's only the rare among the beings that truly realises the Atma and not everybody can get away from this bodily allure and conception. Sri Krishna says that one in a crore [ten million] see atman, one in a crore only hear about atman and one in a crore only talk about him. But it is much more rare to find a person who understands atman. This may cause a doubt in us that there is no one knowing about atman. So there is nothing like atman. Because, if anything exists, then at least some persons should know about it. We talk of Mount Everest. Very few persons would have seen it. From them we understand it is there. We believe an object only if someone who had seen the object tells us. So, Arjuna doubts whether there is an atman, as nobody has seen it. Sri Krishna replies that He did not say there was no one who had seen the atman, but it is very, very rare to find a person who had seen atman. Such a person is a noble one, who can be followed. This second chapter unlike the first one is quite difficult to follow, for everyone learning Gita. Because the soul is abstract and it has no form to recognize nor are there any similar substance in the world to identify. But constant studies and thinking can slowly make us to understand. We are able to conceive God, as many forms are available. But for atman there are no icons. A beginning is now made and by continuous efforts we can refine our knowledge about atman. We shouldn't get distressed by this! How to overcome this rarity?? Our lives are totally consumed by material being. It needs dedication to reflect about our selves (Atma), focus our efforts on it and be dedicated. For eg: if a boy is given to solve a PHD maths problem, he cannot solve it. He needs to complete schooling, Graduate, masters, PHD, before he can solve it. But, at the same time, if he reached adult age, it doesn't mean that he can solve it, unless he is in the Maths field. So, this requires not only "age" & experience, but to study in that field. Similarly, in our lives, we need continued focus in the reflection of the truth about atma to understand this truth. Simply, by living in material life and diving once in a while into spiritual pursuit isn't going to help. When we put effort, the Lord too will reach his hand to guide us. Infact, knowing about Atma is difficult, because it's not seen, heard etc. Atleast dieties in temples, we can see and relish and celebrate fesivals etc, whereas for our atma this is not possible. So, this is difficult. Among innumerable beings, someone, who by great austerity has got rid of paap and has increased his merits, realises this self possessing the above mentioned nature, which is wonderful and distinct in kind from all things other than Itself. Such a one speaks of It to another. Thus, someone hears of It. And even after hearing of It, no one knows It exactly that It really exists. The term 'ca' (and) implies that even amongst the seers, the speakers and hearers, one with authentic percepetion, authentic speech and authentic hearing, is a rarity.<blockquote>देही नित्यमवध्योऽयं देहे सर्वस्य भारत। तस्मात्सर्वाणि भूतानि न त्वं शोचितुमर्हसि ॥ २-३० ॥</blockquote><blockquote>dehī nityam avadhyo ’yaṁ dehe sarvasya bhārata tasmāt sarvāṇi bhūtāni na tvaṁ śocitum arhasi ॥ 2-30 ॥</blockquote>

"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. <blockquote>जातस्य हि ध्रुवो मृत्युर्ध्रुवं जन्म मृतस्य च । तस्मादपरिहार्येऽर्थे न त्वं शोचितुमर्हसि ॥ २-२७॥</blockquote><blockquote>jātasya hi dhruvo mṛtyur dhruvaṁ janma mṛtasya ca tasmād aparihārye ’rthe na tvaṁ śocitum arhasi ॥ 2-27 ॥</blockquote>"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.<blockquote>अव्यक्तादीनि भूतानि व्यक्तमध्यानि भारत । अव्यक्तनिधनान्येव तत्र का परिदेवना ॥ २-२८॥</blockquote><blockquote>avyaktādīni bhūtāni vyakta-madhyāni bhārata avyakta-nidhanāny eva tatra kā paridevanā ॥ 2-28 ॥</blockquote>"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 <blockquote>आश्चर्यवत्पश्यति कश्चिदेन- माश्चर्यवद्वदति तथैव चान्यः । आश्चर्यवच्चैनमन्यः श‍ृणोति  श्रुत्वाप्येनं वेद न चैव कश्चित् ॥ २-२९॥</blockquote><blockquote>āścarya-vat paśyati kaścid enam āścarya-vad vadati tathaiva cānyaḥ āścarya-vac cainam anyaḥ śṛṇoti śrutvāpy enaṁ veda na caiva kaścit ॥ 2-29 ॥</blockquote>In the previous three slokas, Krishna expatiated about not being concerned about Body and how it is temporary. Arjuna is now baffled that he is unable to comprehend this reality and is still scared. All of us are in the same boat, including the great Jnaanis, even though the jnaanis are in a higher plane of understanding. The power of this bodily conception is very difficult to overcome. Krishna responds to this fear of Arjuna: This amazing (Aasharyavati ) nature of soul is known/seen (Pashchati) by only one among crores and only one among crores talks(Vadati) about it and then only one among crores hears (Shrunoti) about it and then only one among crores will really understand(veda) and realise the soul exists and that body is temporary. This shows that it's only the rare among the beings that truly realises the Atma and not everybody can get away from this bodily allure and conception. Sri Krishna says that one in a crore [ten million] see atman, one in a crore only hear about atman and one in a crore only talk about him. But it is much more rare to find a person who understands atman. This may cause a doubt in us that there is no one knowing about atman. So there is nothing like atman. Because, if anything exists, then at least some persons should know about it. We talk of Mount Everest. Very few persons would have seen it. From them we understand it is there. We believe an object only if someone who had seen the object tells us. So, Arjuna doubts whether there is an atman, as nobody has seen it. Sri Krishna replies that He did not say there was no one who had seen the atman, but it is very, very rare to find a person who had seen atman. Such a person is a noble one, who can be followed. This second chapter unlike the first one is quite difficult to follow, for everyone learning Gita. Because the soul is abstract and it has no form to recognize nor are there any similar substance in the world to identify. But constant studies and thinking can slowly make us to understand. We are able to conceive God, as many forms are available. But for atman there are no icons. A beginning is now made and by continuous efforts we can refine our knowledge about atman. We shouldn't get distressed by this! How to overcome this rarity?? Our lives are totally consumed by material being. It needs dedication to reflect about our selves (Atma), focus our efforts on it and be dedicated. For eg: if a boy is given to solve a PHD maths problem, he cannot solve it. He needs to complete schooling, Graduate, masters, PHD, before he can solve it. But, at the same time, if he reached adult age, it doesn't mean that he can solve it, unless he is in the Maths field. So, this requires not only "age" & experience, but to study in that field. Similarly, in our lives, we need continued focus in the reflection of the truth about atma to understand this truth. Simply, by living in material life and diving once in a while into spiritual pursuit isn't going to help. When we put effort, the Lord too will reach his hand to guide us. Infact, knowing about Atma is difficult, because it's not seen, heard etc. Atleast dieties in temples, we can see and relish and celebrate fesivals etc, whereas for our atma this is not possible. So, this is difficult. Among innumerable beings, someone, who by great austerity has got rid of paap and has increased his merits, realises this self possessing the above mentioned nature, which is wonderful and distinct in kind from all things other than Itself. Such a one speaks of It to another. Thus, someone hears of It. And even after hearing of It, no one knows It exactly that It really exists. The term 'ca' (and) implies that even amongst the seers, the speakers and hearers, one with authentic percepetion, authentic speech and authentic hearing, is a rarity.<blockquote>देही नित्यमवध्योऽयं देहे सर्वस्य भारत। तस्मात्सर्वाणि भूतानि न त्वं शोचितुमर्हसि ॥ २-३० ॥</blockquote><blockquote>dehī nityam avadhyo ’yaṁ dehe sarvasya bhārata tasmāt sarvāṇi bhūtāni na tvaṁ śocitum arhasi ॥ 2-30 ॥</blockquote>

Atma (it resides in body); Nityam->Eternal ; "Na Tvam sochitu arhasi".. THis is a common refrain of Krishna in many slokas, which implies that "you do not grieve"! Here Krishna says that Self(Jeevatma) exists in everyone's body and even when all this bodies perish, the atma(s) in them do not perish. Note that, Krishna says there is Jeevatma in everyone's body and it's not that ONE atma pervades all bodies! This is in response to Arjuna's doubt: 'I am understanding about the perishability of body as per krishan's slokas below. Now, everybody in this world seems different. One person varies from another in appearance, personality, esteem, joys and sorrows etc. So, is there a difference in the Jeevatmas nature too among people? i.e is one jeevatma's nature different from another?? Is one jeevatma eternal and the other not? ". In response, Krishna tells this sloka that the atmas residing in all bodies are eternal and do not perish, when the body perishes. Now, another question arises, when the bodies are different (color, sex, creed, appearance etc), how come the atma is same?? To remove this doubt only Sri Krishna tells that the atman or dehi in every body or deham is eternal. We are witnessing changes on the body but the soul remains the same. To understand this we should examine closely our daily habits and experiences. We see variety of persons. Some are fair, some black, some tall, some short, some females, some males, some animals, etc. but all these differences do not change our habits. One may be a millionaire and another a poor. But both see with their eyes only and hear with their ears. There is no difference in these functions. Educated or illiterate, one has to eat with his mouth only. So, God has not permitted any difference in certain basic functions. We eat varieties of food and vegetables. They remain so till what we eat reaches the throat. After this the body assimilates them as protein, vitamin or carbohydrates. This is scientific fact. We do not eat as such fat or proteins. So, all differences are in the external appearance only, such as brinjal [butter fruit] or lady s finger [okra]. The body, however, takes only the essence. So, only those, which appear different, are all destroyed and atman, which is identical in every creature, is eternal. So Arjuna need not to worry that he may be destroying a destroyable atman. So, in this sloka Krishna says, that Arjuna need not show grief. (Note that as per bodily conception of relations, we do have to show compassion, affection etc, but if we limit to just bodily ideas, then we end up being selfish about self, family etc, but if we look at if from jeevatma conception, our compassion will not be limited just to few, but to everybody! and it will also ensure we understand the sense of duty without getting over emotional and binding). If we distinguish atman from body, then we can be of real help to not merely our relatives but to everyone suffering. Relatives are body related. Only a perspective that all atmans are same can make us render help to all. That is why in any calamity, there are some persons who concentrate on the things to do and do not go emotional. Such duty minded persons are of real help. Though the soul is immortal, violence is not encouraged, but at the time of war it is not discouraged when there is actual need for it. That need must be justified in terms of the sanction of the Lord, and not capriciously.

Atma (it resides in body); Nityam->Eternal ; "Na Tvam sochitu arhasi".. THis is a common refrain of Krishna in many slokas, which implies that "you do not grieve"! Here Krishna says that Self(Jeevatma) exists in everyone's body and even when all this bodies perish, the atma(s) in them do not perish. Note that, Krishna says there is Jeevatma in everyone's body and it's not that ONE atma pervades all bodies! This is in response to Arjuna's doubt: 'I am understanding about the perishability of body as per krishan's slokas below. Now, everybody in this world seems different. One person varies from another in appearance, personality, esteem, joys and sorrows etc. So, is there a difference in the Jeevatmas nature too among people? i.e is one jeevatma's nature different from another?? Is one jeevatma eternal and the other not? ". In response, Krishna tells this sloka that the atmas residing in all bodies are eternal and do not perish, when the body perishes. Now, another question arises, when the bodies are different (color, sex, creed, appearance etc), how come the atma is same?? To remove this doubt only Sri Krishna tells that the atman or dehi in every body or deham is eternal. We are witnessing changes on the body but the soul remains the same. To understand this we should examine closely our daily habits and experiences. We see variety of persons. Some are fair, some black, some tall, some short, some females, some males, some animals, etc. but all these differences do not change our habits. One may be a millionaire and another a poor. But both see with their eyes only and hear with their ears. There is no difference in these functions. Educated or illiterate, one has to eat with his mouth only. So, God has not permitted any difference in certain basic functions. We eat varieties of food and vegetables. They remain so till what we eat reaches the throat. After this the body assimilates them as protein, vitamin or carbohydrates. This is scientific fact. We do not eat as such fat or proteins. So, all differences are in the external appearance only, such as brinjal [butter fruit] or lady s finger [okra]. The body, however, takes only the essence. So, only those, which appear different, are all destroyed and atman, which is identical in every creature, is eternal. So Arjuna need not to worry that he may be destroying a destroyable atman. So, in this sloka Krishna says, that Arjuna need not show grief. (Note that as per bodily conception of relations, we do have to show compassion, affection etc, but if we limit to just bodily ideas, then we end up being selfish about self, family etc, but if we look at if from jeevatma conception, our compassion will not be limited just to few, but to everybody! and it will also ensure we understand the sense of duty without getting over emotional and binding). If we distinguish atman from body, then we can be of real help to not merely our relatives but to everyone suffering. Relatives are body related. Only a perspective that all atmans are same can make us render help to all. That is why in any calamity, there are some persons who concentrate on the things to do and do not go emotional. Such duty minded persons are of real help. Though the soul is immortal, violence is not encouraged, but at the time of war it is not discouraged when there is actual need for it. That need must be justified in terms of the sanction of the Lord, and not capriciously.<blockquote>स्वधर्ममपि चावेक्ष्य न विकम्पितुमर्हसि ।  धर्म्याद्धि युद्धाच्छ्रेयोऽन्यत्क्षत्रियस्य न विद्यते ॥ २-३१॥</blockquote><blockquote>sva-dharmam api cāvekṣya na vikampitum arhasi dharmyād dhi yuddhāc chreyo ’nyat kṣatriyasya na vidyate ॥ 2-31 ॥</blockquote>"Considering your specific duty as a kshatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation." In the previous slokas Krishna adviced that Arjuna should not show love and undue attention to the body, since it is temporary. In this slokam, he focusses on the importance of doing one's dharma. As a Kshatriya, it is Arjuna's duty to fight. There is no other way for Moksham for a Kshatriya. Now, there is a seeming "controversy" here. Here, Krishna says to Arjuna that he has to fight the war, if he wants to gain Moksham. In some quarters, Gita is incorrectly potrayed as a "war goading" book, which resulted in Mahabharat war. The question is, is "fighting war" the only way for Arjuna to gain moksham?? Not exactly. Krishna is telling Arjuna to do his Dharma. And Kshatriya's duty is to fight a "righteous" war and not run away. Had Krishna given Gita to a non-kshatriya, it would have been a different dharma (and not war). Another question, doesn't war involve killing and pain to other beings?? So, how would it be construed as a path to Moksham?? The reality is, there are different kinds of "Himsa" in this world (e.g. for example surgery on a body, mental agony, woman giving birth to a child etc, grabbing property from a family etc). Himsa is something which gives pain not just for the present but also in the future. So, in this war, all the warriors who are fighting get "veera" swargam. As long as Arjuna is fighting a war justly and also a just war(whose end is just) then it's his dharma and is assured of Moksham. Out of the four orders of social administration, the second order, for the matter of good administration, is called ksatriya. Ksat means hurt. One who gives protection from harm is called ksatriya (trayate--to give protection). There are two kinds of svadharmas, specific duties. As long as one is not liberated, one has to perform the duties of that particular body in accordance with religious principles in order to achieve liberation. When one is liberated, one's sva-dharma--specific duty--becomes spiritual and is not in the material bodily concept. In the bodily conception of life there are specific duties for the brahmanas and ksatriyas respectively, and such duties are unavoidable. Sva-dharma is ordained by the Lord, and this will be clarified in the Fourth Chapter. On the bodily plane sva-dharma is called varnasrama-dharma, or man's steppingstone for spiritual understanding. Human civilization begins from the stage of varnasrama-dharma, or specific duties in terms of the specific modes of nature of the body obtained. Discharging one's specific duty in any field of action in

 

accordance with varnasrama-dharma serves to elevate one to a higher status of life.<blockquote>यदृच्छया चोपपन्नं स्वर्गद्वारमपावृतम् ।  सुखिनः क्षत्रियाः पार्थ लभन्ते युद्धमीदृशम् ॥ २-३२॥</blockquote><blockquote>yadṛcchayā copapannaṁ svarga-dvāram apāvṛtam sukhinaḥ kṣatriyāḥ pārtha labhante yuddham īdṛśam ॥ 2-32 ॥</blockquote>"O Partha, happy are the kshatriyas to whom such fighting opportunities come unsought, opening for them unhindered the doors of the heavenly planets." The impending war is happening by itself, on its own, without any solicitation on the part of Arjuna. Thus when it happens he and his brothers will be fighting on the side of righteousness which constitutes the means for acquiring heavenly happiness without obstacles. Such a war can only be fought by the most fortunate of ksatriyas and Arjuna should understand his good fortune. Krishna continues mentioning about the importance of Dharma here. He says Arjuna is facing this war, not out of his own making, but by "yaddrachaya" (Fate, God's grace), which is a gateway to heaven, which is a blessing for the great and righteous Kshatriyas. Now that question arises, which "swargam" is Krishna referring to here? Is it Indra lokam etc?? No. Krishna is referring to Moksham here. **This also point out to how to qualify a decision - Before we engage ourselves in any work we will have to see these points: Is this  legally allowed? After starting the work, will there be need for any unlawful activities? Is the objective a virtuous one or evil? Is there precedence by elders? These four points are required to be examined before we embark on any activity. In the present context, the fighting of this war has to answer all these quest <nowiki>**</nowiki> Referring to Dharma Yuddham - The Lord himself went to war against tyrannical demons to protect Dharma. For e.g. Rama, Nrusimha, Vamana etc. In the Parasara-smrti or religious codes made by Parasara, the great sage and father of Vyasadeva, it is stated: ksatriyo hi praja raksan sastra-panih pradandayan nirjitya para-sainyadi ksitim dharmena palayet "The ksatriya's duty is to protect the citizens from all kinds of difficulties, and for that reason he has to apply violence in suitable cases for law and order. Therefore he has to conquer the soldiers of inimical kings, and thus, with religious principles, he should rule over the world." Considering all aspects, Arjuna had no reason to refrain from fighting. If he should conquer his enemies, he would enjoy the kingdom; and if he should die in the battle, he would be elevated to the heavenly planets whose doors were wide open to him. Fighting would be for his benefit in either case.

स्वधर्ममपि चावेक्ष्य न विकम्पितुमर्हसि ।  धर्म्याद्धि युद्धाच्छ्रेयोऽन्यत्क्षत्रियस्य न विद्यते ॥ २-३१॥

 

sva-dharmam api cāvekṣya na vikampitum arhasi dharmyād dhi yuddhāc chreyo ’nyat kṣatriyasya na vidyate ॥ 2-31 ॥

 

"Considering your specific duty as a kshatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation." In the previous slokas Krishna adviced that Arjuna should not show love and undue attention to the body, since it is temporary. In this slokam, he focusses on the importance of doing one's dharma. As a Kshatriya, it is Arjuna's duty to fight. There is no other way for Moksham for a Kshatriya. Now, there is a seeming "controversy" here. Here, Krishna says to Arjuna that he has to fight the war, if he wants to gain Moksham. In some quarters, Gita is incorrectly potrayed as a "war goading" book, which resulted in Mahabharat war. The question is, is "fighting war" the only way for Arjuna to gain moksham?? Not exactly. Krishna is telling Arjuna to do his Dharma. And Kshatriya's duty is to fight a "righteous" war and not run away. Had Krishna given Gita to a non-kshatriya, it would have been a different dharma (and not war). Another question, doesn't war involve killing and pain to other beings?? So, how would it be construed as a path to Moksham?? The reality is, there are different kinds of "Himsa" in this world (e.g. for example surgery on a body, mental agony, woman giving birth to a child etc, grabbing property from a family etc). Himsa is something which gives pain not just for the present but also in the future. So, in this war, all the warriors who are fighting get "veera" swargam. As long as Arjuna is fighting a war justly and also a just war(whose end is just) then it's his dharma and is assured of Moksham. Out of the four orders of social administration, the second order, for the matter of good administration, is called ksatriya. Ksat means hurt. One who gives protection from harm is called ksatriya (trayate--to give protection). There are two kinds of svadharmas, specific duties. As long as one is not liberated, one has to perform the duties of that particular body in accordance with religious principles in order to achieve liberation. When one is liberated, one's sva-dharma--specific duty--becomes spiritual and is not in the material bodily concept. In the bodily conception of life there are specific duties for the brahmanas and ksatriyas respectively, and such duties are unavoidable. Sva-dharma is ordained by the Lord, and this will be clarified in the Fourth Chapter. On the bodily plane sva-dharma is called varnasrama-dharma, or man's steppingstone for spiritual understanding. Human civilization begins from the stage of varnasrama-dharma, or specific duties in terms of the specific modes of nature of the body obtained. Discharging one's specific duty in any field of action in

accordance with varnasrama-dharma serves to elevate one to a higher status of life.

 

2-32: yadrcchaya-ca upa-pannam svarga-dvaaram apaa-vrtam sukhinah kshatriyAh partha labhante yuddham idrsam "O Partha, happy are the kshatriyas to whom such fighting opportunities come unsought, opening for them unhindered the doors of the heavenly planets." The impending war is happening by itself, on its own, without any solicitation on the part of Arjuna. Thus when it happens he and his brothers will be fighting on the side of righteousness which constitutes the means for acquiring heavenly happiness without obstacles. Such a war can only be fought by the most fortunate of ksatriyas and Arjuna should understand his good fortune. Krishna continues mentioning about the importance of Dharma here. He says Arjuna is facing this war, not out of his own making, but by "yaddrachaya" (Fate, God's grace), which is a gateway to heaven, which is a blessing for the great and righteous Kshatriyas. Now that question arises, which "swargam" is Krishna referring to here? Is it Indra lokam etc?? No. Krishna is referring to Moksham here. **This also point out to how to qualify a decision - Before we engage ourselves in any work we will have to see these points: Is this  legally allowed? After starting the work, will there be need for any unlawful activities? Is the objective a virtuous one or evil? Is there precedence by elders? These four points are required to be examined before we embark on any activity. In the present context, the fighting of this war has to answer all these quest <nowiki>**</nowiki> Referring to Dharma Yuddham - The Lord himself went to war against tyrannical demons to protect Dharma. For e.g. Rama, Nrusimha, Vamana etc. In the Parasara-smrti or religious codes made by Parasara, the great sage and father of Vyasadeva, it is stated: ksatriyo hi praja raksan sastra-panih pradandayan nirjitya para-sainyadi ksitim dharmena palayet "The ksatriya's duty is to protect the citizens from all kinds of difficulties, and for that reason he has to apply violence in suitable cases for law and order. Therefore he has to conquer the soldiers of inimical kings, and thus, with religious principles, he should rule over the world." Considering all aspects, Arjuna had no reason to refrain from fighting. If he should conquer his enemies, he would enjoy the kingdom; and if he should die in the battle, he would be elevated to the heavenly planets whose doors were wide open to him. Fighting would be for his benefit in either case.

2-33: atha-cet-tvam imam dharmyam sangraamam na karishyasi tatah sva-dharmam kIrtim ca hitva paapam avapsyasi "If, however, you do not perform your duty of fighting for dharma, then you will certainly incur paap for neglecting your duties and lose your reputation as a fighter." In the previous two slokas, Krishna explained to Arjuna that it is imperative for him to follow his dharma as Kshatriya and fight the war which has come upon him as "yaddhrachaya" (thru divine chance) and that by doing so, he will achieve Moksham. In this sloka and the next, Krishna says the paap that will befall Arjuna if he does NOT fight the war. By listing the difficulties and sorrows he would encounter if he slipped from his expected duty, Sri Krishna is encouraging him to fight. In any act we have to state the benefits by doing that and the ill effects by not doing. By judging both one

2-33: atha-cet-tvam imam dharmyam sangraamam na karishyasi tatah sva-dharmam kIrtim ca hitva paapam avapsyasi "If, however, you do not perform your duty of fighting for dharma, then you will certainly incur paap for neglecting your duties and lose your reputation as a fighter." In the previous two slokas, Krishna explained to Arjuna that it is imperative for him to follow his dharma as Kshatriya and fight the war which has come upon him as "yaddhrachaya" (thru divine chance) and that by doing so, he will achieve Moksham. In this sloka and the next, Krishna says the paap that will befall Arjuna if he does NOT fight the war. By listing the difficulties and sorrows he would encounter if he slipped from his expected duty, Sri Krishna is encouraging him to fight. In any act we have to state the benefits by doing that and the ill effects by not doing. By judging both one