B.G 2.13
dēhinō'sminyathā dēhē kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā। tathā dēhāntaraprāptirdhīrastatra na muhyati ॥ 2-13॥
The dweller of the body experiences childhood, youth and old age in the changing body. So also one gets another body (after death). It does not perturb the brave man.
Gīta Bhāshya 2.13
Like 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 the proof for existence of God. We cannot deny a majority view without giving proof. Arguments that don't serve general good are of no value and are faulty. There is a Self which is different from the body. Nothing can destroy the Self. The transformation from youth to old age destroys the body. Similarly, death destroys the body. In either case, there is nothing to worry.
dēhinō bhāvē ētadbhavati। tadēvāsiddham iti cēnna dēhinō'smin। yathā kaumārādiśarīrabhēdēpi dēhī tadīkṣitā siddhaḥ ēvaṁ dēhāntaraprāptāvapi। īkṣitr̥tvāt।
There is a soul which is different from the body. The verse–'dehinosmin' establishes this. The way we perceive the same soul experiencing childhood, youth and old age, similarly after getting a new body, we experience the same soul. Also, because we behold previously existing (soul).
na hi jaḍasya śarīrasya kaumārādyanubhavaḥ sambhavati। mr̥tasyādarśanāt। mr̥tasya vāyvādyapagamādanubhavābhāvaḥ। ahaṁ manuṣya ityādyanubhavāccaitat siddhamiti cēt na। satyēvāviśēṣē dēhē suptyādau jñānādiviśēṣādarśanāt। samaścābhimānō manasi। kāṣṭhādivacca।
It is not possible to experience childhood and other perceptions from an inanimate body once it is dead. In the 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 soul". 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 fire, the egoistic mind (can only enable knowledge).
śrutēśca। prāmāṇyaṁ ca pratyakṣādivat। na ca bauddhādivat। apauruṣēyatvāt। na hyapauruṣēyē pauruṣēyājñānādayaḥ kalpayituṁ śakyāḥ।
The Vedas recognize this as well. Vedas are a valid means to knowledge like perception. As Vedas are not human made, unlike words of Buddha, it is not possible to attribute ignorance and other human defects to Vedas.
vinā ca kasyacid vākyasyāpauruṣēyatvaṁ sarvasamayābhimatadharmādyasididhaḥ।
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 nāṅgīkurutē nāsau samayī। aprayōjakatvāt। māstu dharmōnirūpyatvāditi cēt na। sarvābhimatasya pramāṇaṁ vinā niṣēddhumaśakyatvāt। naca siddhiraprāmāṇikasyēti cēt - na। sarvābhimatērēva pramāṇatvāt।
If one doesn’t agree with the view that there is common good like dharma, then it is not appropriate. As no purpose gets served with such an argument. Also, it is incorrect to say it is not possible to establish the existence of dharma. We cannot deny 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 sarvavācikavyavahārāsiddhēśca। na ca mayā śrutamiti tava jñātuṁ śakyam। anyathā vā pratyuttaraṁ syāt। bhrāntirvā tava syāt।
Otherwise, 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.
sarvaduḥkhakāraṇatvaṁ vā syāt। ēkō vānyathā syāt।
Such an argument will only cause misery for all, even if a single person put forth it.
racitatvē ca dharmapramāṇasya karturajñānādidōṣaśaṅkā syāt। na cādōṣatvaṁ svavākyēna ēva siddhyati। na ca yēna kēnacidapauruṣēyamityuktamuktavākyasamam। ānādikālaparigrahasiddhatvāt। ataḥ prāmāṇyaṁ śrutēḥ। ataḥ kutarkaiḥ dhīrastatra na muhyati॥
It is not possible to establish the 'dharma', the righteousness with the 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 herd sentences, i.e. Vedas, are such authority. The brave does not let misguided, faulty, and illogical arguments confuse them.
athavā, jīvanāśaṁ dēhanāśaṁ vāpēkṣya śōkaḥ? na tāvat jīvanāśam। nityatvādityāha– na tvēvēti। nāpi dēhanāśamityāha– dēhina iti। yathā kaumārādidēhahānēna jarādiprāptāvaśōkaḥ ēvaṁ jīrṇādidēhahānēna dēhāntaraprāptāvapi ॥ 13 ॥
Is one worried about the destruction of the being or body? There is no destruction of the 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. Using the word 'dehina' Krishna excludes his own body, as the body of God does not undergo change.
mama svakīyadēhāntaraprāptirapi nāstīti darśayituṁ dēhina iti viśēṣaṇam। bhavadādīnāṁ sā bhaviṣyatītyapi śōkō na kartavyaḥ। dēhasyēdānī- mapyanyathātvadarśanāt ॥ 13 ॥
Krishna used the adjective 'dehina', your body, to deny himself, the God, different bodies. Even if Arjuna and others get different bodies, they should not grieve. Because it does not differ from the body undergoing changes in current life when observed scientifically.
