B.G 2.13
dehino'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā। tathā dehāntaraprāptir dhīras tatra na muhyati ॥ 2-13॥
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.
dehino bhāve etadbhavati। tadevā siddham iti cenna dehino'smin। yathā kaumārādiśarīrabhede'pi dehī tadīkṣitā siddhaḥ evaṃ dehāntaraprāptāvapi। īkṣitṛtvāt।
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.
na hi jaḍasya śarīrasya kaumārādyanubhavaḥ sambhavati. mṛtasyādarśanāt. mṛtasya vāyvādyapagamādanubhavābhāvaḥ. ahaṃ manuṣya ityādyanubhavāccaitat siddhamiti cet na. satyevāviśeṣe dehe suptyādau jñānādiviśeṣādarśanāt. samaścābhimāno manasi. kāṣṭhādivacca.
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).
śruteśca। prāmāṇyaṃ ca pratyakṣādivat। na ca bauddhādivat। apauruṣeyatvāt। na hyapauruṣeye pauruṣeyājñānādayaḥ kalpayituṃ śakyāḥ।
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.
vinā ca kasyacid vākyasyāpauruṣeyatvaṃ sarvasamayābhimatadharmādyasid'dhiḥ।
Without non-human made statements, how is it possible to establish the dharma (righteousness) that is agreeable to all and applicable at all times?
yaśca tau nāṅgīkurute nāsau samayī। aprayojakatvāt। māstu dharmoni rūpyatvād iti cet na। sarvābhimatasya pramāṇaṃ vinā niṣeddhum aśakyatvāt। naca siddhir aprāmāṇikasya iti cet - na। sarvābhimate reva pramāṇatvāt।
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.
anyathā sarvavācikavyavahārāsiddheśca। na ca mayā śrutamiti tava jñātuṃ śakyam। anyathā vā pratyuttaraṃ syāt। bhrāntirvā tava syāt।
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.
sarvaduḥkhakāraṇatvaṃ vā syāt। eko vānyathā syāt।
Such an argument will only cause misery to all, even if a single person puts it forth.
racitatve ca dharmapramāṇasya karturajñānādidoṣaśaṅkā syāt। na cādoṣatvaṃ svavākyena eva siddhyati। na ca yena kenacidapauruṣeyamityuktamuktavākyasamam। ānādikālaparigrahasiddhatvāt। ataḥ prāmāṇyaṃ śruteḥ। ataḥ kutarkaiḥ dhīrastatra na muhyati॥
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.
athavā, jīvanāśaṃ dehanāśaṃ vāpekṣya śokaḥ? na tāvat jīvanāśam. nityatvādityāha– na tveveti. nāpi dehanāśamityāha– dehina iti. yathā kaumārādidehahānena jarādiprāptāvaśokaḥ evaṃ jīrṇādidehahānena dehāntaraprāptāvapi ॥ 13 ॥
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.
mama svakīyadehāntaraprāptirapi nāstīti darśayituṃ dehina iti viśeṣaṇam। bhavadādīnāṃ sā bhaviṣyatītyapi śoko na kartavyaḥ। dehasyedānī- mapyanyathātvadarśanāt ॥ 13 ॥
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.
