B.G 2.13
देहिनोऽस्मिन्यथा देहे कौमारं यौवनं जरा। तथा देहान्तरप्राप्तिर्धीरस्तत्र न मुह्यति ॥ २-१३॥
Just as the embodied being continuously passes in this body from childhood to youth to old age, similarly, the being passes into another body. This does not bewilder the wise.
Gīta Bhāshya 2.13
Similar to direct perception, Vēdas are also valid means to knowledge, as they are devoid of human defect. The belief in 'dharma', the common good, among the majority is proof of the existence of God. We cannot deny a majority view without giving proof. Arguments that don't serve the general good are of no value and are faulty. Nothing can destroy a living being. The transformation from youth to old age destroys only the physical body; similarly, death also destroys only the physical body. We don't get perturbed in the first case; similarly, there is no need to worry in the latter case as well.
देहिनो भावे एतद्भवति। तदेवासिद्धम् इति चेन्न देहिनोऽस्मिन्। यथा कौमारादिशरीरभेदेपि देही तदीक्षिता सिद्धः एवं देहान्तरप्राप्तावपि। ईक्षितृत्वात्।
There is a being which is different from the body. The verse, 'dehinosmin', i.e. 'it exists in the body', establishes this. The way we perceive the same being experiencing childhood, youth and old age, similarly after getting a new body, we experience the same being. Also, due to being the seer.
न हि जडस्य शरीरस्य कौमाराद्यनुभवः सम्भवति। मृतस्यादर्शनात्। मृतस्य वाय्वाद्यपगमादनुभवाभावः। अहं मनुष्य इत्याद्यनुभवाच्चैतत् सिद्धमिति चेत् न। सत्येवाविशेषे देहे सुप्त्यादौ ज्ञानादिविशेषादर्शनात्। समश्चाभिमानो मनसि। काष्ठादिवच्च।
It is not possible to experience childhood and other perceptions from an inanimate body once it is dead. In a dead body, there is no breath, power to digest, or sense perception. It is not the right argument to say, "As we have the feeling, I am human, my body is the spirit". In the not so special body that is in deep sleep, it is not possible to see the special knowledge and unique ability to perceive truth. The way wood is required to light a fire, the egoistic mind (can only enable knowledge).
श्रुतेश्च। प्रामाण्यं च प्रत्यक्षादिवत्। न च बौद्धादिवत्। अपौरुषेयत्वात्। न ह्यपौरुषेये पौरुषेयाज्ञानादयः कल्पयितुं शक्याः।
The Vedas recognize this truth as well (, that body is not the same as a living being). Vedas are a valid means to knowledge, similar to direct perception. Unlike the words of Buddha, the Vedas are not human-made. Hence, it is not possible to attribute ignorance and other human defects to the Vedas.
विना च कस्यचिद् वाक्यस्यापौरुषेयत्वं सर्वसमयाभिमतधर्माद्यसिदि्धः।
Without non-human made statements, how is it possible to establish the dharma (righteousness) that is agreeable to all and applicable at all times?
यश्च तौ नाङ्गीकुरुते नासौ समयी। अप्रयोजकत्वात्। मास्तु धर्मोनिरूप्यत्वादिति चेत् न। सर्वाभिमतस्य प्रमाणं विना निषेद्धुमशक्यत्वात्। नच सिद्धिरप्रामाणिकस्येति चेत् - न। सर्वाभिमतेरेव प्रमाणत्वात्।
If one doesn’t agree with the view that there is a common good like dharma, then it is not appropriate. Such an argument serves no purpose. Also, it is incorrect to say that it is not possible to establish the existence of dharma. We cannot deny the majority opinion without giving valid proof. Then how to establish (dharma exists) with no proof? In such a scenario, the opinion of the majority itself is evidence.
अन्यथा सर्ववाचिकव्यवहारासिद्धेश्च। न च मया श्रुतमिति तव ज्ञातुं शक्यम्। अन्यथा वा प्रत्युत्तरं स्यात्। भ्रान्तिर्वा तव स्यात्।
Without inference, it is not possible for any spoken transaction to take place, such as "I have heard", "You have understood what I heard". If you say by only listening to the replies, even that involves inference.
सर्वदुःखकारणत्वं वा स्यात्। एको वान्यथा स्यात्।
Such an argument will only cause misery to all, even if a single person puts it forth.
रचितत्वे च धर्मप्रमाणस्य कर्तुरज्ञानादिदोषशङ्का स्यात्। न चादोषत्वं स्ववाक्येन एव सिद्ध्यति। न च येन केनचिदपौरुषेयमित्युक्तमुक्तवाक्यसमम्। आनादिकालपरिग्रहसिद्धत्वात्। अतः प्रामाण्यं श्रुतेः। अतः कुतर्कैः धीरस्तत्र न मुह्यति॥
It is not possible to establish the 'dharma', the righteousness with sentences created by humans. Even if the author claims there are no defects in the sentences formed by self, it is possible to doubt ignorance and other defects in the author. Hence, human-made sentences are never equal to sentences coming from liberated. From time immemorial, it has been established that the sentences heard from sages, i.e. Vedas, are of such authority. The brave do not let themselves be misguided by faulty and illogical arguments.
अथवा, जीवनाशं देहनाशं वापेक्ष्य शोकः? न तावत् जीवनाशम्। नित्यत्वादित्याह– न त्वेवेति। नापि देहनाशमित्याह– देहिन इति। यथा कौमारादिदेहहानेन जरादिप्राप्तावशोकः एवं जीर्णादिदेहहानेन देहान्तरप्राप्तावपि ॥ १३ ॥
Is one worried about the destruction of the being or the body? There is no destruction to living being. The eternality of the being is clarified by 'natvevaham' (2-12) verse. The 'dehinosmin' (2-13) verse explains why one should not grieve when the body is destroyed. One does not grieve when a youthful body is destroyed by old age. Similarly, one should not grieve when a worn-out body is destroyed, and one gets a new body by transformation.
Gīta Tātparya 2.13
Changing the body after death is no different compared to changing the body from youth to old-age. Hence, one should not grieve. Using the word 'dehina' Krishna excludes his own body, as the body of God does not undergo change as it is without defects.
मम स्वकीयदेहान्तरप्राप्तिरपि नास्तीति दर्शयितुं देहिन इति विशेषणम्। भवदादीनां सा भविष्यतीत्यपि शोको न कर्तव्यः। देहस्येदानी- मप्यन्यथात्वदर्शनात् ॥ १३ ॥
To show that even I (the God without defects) do not attain another body, the term 'dehin' (embodied) is used as a qualification. For you and others, that (attainment of another body) will happen, but grief should not be entertained. Even now (from childhood to youth to old-age), the body is seen to undergo change.
