B.G 2.16
नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः। उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः ॥ २-१६॥
The non-existent does not come about from becoming. From the non-becoming does not come the existent. Never there was happiness in unreal, and never there was misery in the real. Seekers of truth, both (philosophers and through disciple succession), have indeed observed and concluded.
Gīta Tātparya 2.16
From inappropriate action, there can never be happiness and from appropriate action there can be no misery. 'Abhava' indicates misery. Brahman is never to be known as 'asat', the non-existent or unreal. The verse is not meant to convey the illusionary nature of the world. It is only stating that the phenomenon arises and expresses itself when relevant cause arises, and it ceases to express itself when the cause ceases to operate. It does not indicate an object that is beyond being and non-being, as there is no proof of existence of such an object. Even the experience of a mirage is a genuine experience. There is nothing like a false experience.
न च युद्धात्परलोकदुःखमिति शोकः। असत्कर्मणः सकाशात् भावो नास्ति सत्कर्मणः सकाशात् अभावो नास्तीति नियतत्वात्।
Becoming melancholy at the present moment by thinking about misery in the after world due to war is not appropriate. "From inappropriate action there can never be happiness and from appropriate action there can be no misery"–thus states the governances of principles.
"सद्भाववाचिनः शब्दाः सर्वे ते सुखवाचकाः। अभाववाचिनः शब्दाः सर्वे ते दुःखवाचकाः" ॥ इति शब्दनिर्णये।
"The word 'sadbhāva' indicates happiness in all its usages and 'abhāva' indicates misery in all its usage”–states shabdanirnaya, the ancient dictionary.
"सद्भावे साधुभावे च सदित्येतत्प्रयुज्यते। प्रशस्ते कर्मणि तथा सच्छब्दः पार्थ युज्यते॥" इति वक्ष्यमाणत्वात्। (गीता. १७-२६)
"O Partha, the term 'sadbhāva' is employed in the sense of being good natured and to mean reality. It is also used in the sense of auspicious and praiseworthy acts."–thus it is stated in Gita itself (17.26)
"असन्नेव स भवति, असद्ब्रह्मेति वेद चेत्" इत्यादेश्च।
"One who knows Brahman as non-being (asat), himself becomes miserable"–thus are the ancient instructions.
अन्तो निर्णयः।
'anta' means conclusive decision.
न चाविद्यामानविद्यमानयोरुत्पत्तिनाशनिषेधकोयं श्लोकः। प्रत्यक्षविरोधात्। सन्निति व्यवह्रियमाणमेव पदार्थस्वरूपमुत्पत्तेः प्राङ्ग्नाशोत्तरं च नास्तीति सर्वलोको व्यवहरति। न च विपर्यये किञ्चिन्मानम्। इदं तु वाक्यमन्यथासिद्धम्।
Above hymn is not rejecting the creation of previously non-existing or rejecting the destruction of previously existing. This will be opposed to direct perception. "The object exists", "it is created", "it does not exist after destruction"–are the ways of dealing with objects daily by everyone. It is not trying to convey that such interactions are because of illusion. The meaning of the sentence is altogether different.
"आद्यन्तयोः सर्वकार्यमसदेवेति निश्चितम्। यद्यसन्न विशेषोत्र जायते कोत्र जायते॥ व्यक्तावपि समं येतदनवस्थान्यथा भवेत्। एवं नाशेपि बोद्धव्यमतोसन्नेव जायते॥ तथाप्यभेदानुभवात् कार्यकारणयोः सदा। भेदस्य चाविशेषेण देहोगात् क्षितितामिति॥ व्यवहारो भवेद्यस्माद्बल्येवानुभवः सदा॥" इति ब्रह्मतर्के।
"All the activities are definitely non-existent before the beginning or after the end. Thus, the uniqueness of them does not arise before its beginning. It expresses itself because of the corresponding cause, not otherwise. When the cause is destroyed, without a relevant driving factor, it subsides. Therefore, we always experience the difference between the cause and non-cause. In normal conversation, we say the body merges with the earth when it dies. This is by experiencing and differentiating bodies’ unique activities during childhood and other living phases compared to non-living state." - states Brahmatarka
न च सदसद्विलक्षणं किञ्चिदस्तीत्यत्र किञ्चिन्मानम्। न चासतः ख्यात्ययोगात् सतो बाधायोगादुभयविलक्षणं भ्रान्तिविषयम्। असतः ख्यात्ययोगादिति वदतोसतः ख्यातिरभून्न वा? यदि नाभूत् न तत्ख्यातिनिराकरणम्। यद्यभूत् तथापि।
This verse does not state the object that is beyond ‘being and non-being’, because there is no evidence to prove such an object exists. Even with ‘non-being’, there is true experience and behaving indifferently to both imaginary and non-imaginary objects is not a hindrance. Is it not a true experience that we get from ‘non-being’? If they both don’t exist, then it is not possible to deny such a point of view. Therefore, ‘being and non-being’ truly exist.
न चासतोसत्वेन भ्रान्तौ सत्वेन च ख्यातिर्नास्तीत्यत्र किञ्चिन्मानम्। असद्व्यवहारलोपप्रसङ्गाच्च। यदविद्यमानं रूपं तस्य सत्त्वेन प्रतीतेरेव भ्रान्तित्वाच्च।
"Non-being does not exist", "illusionary objects exist"–such a point of view is not in vogue. For the non-existent specials (like mirage) it leads to fallacy, such as inability to transact in the world. Illusion is nothing but the appearance of the form as if existing.
अनिर्वचनीयत्वपक्षेपि सदिदं रजतमित्यविद्यमानसत्त्वप्रतीतिं विना न हि भ्रान्तित्वम्। भ्रान्तिसत्त्वाङ्गीकारेप्यभ्रान्तं सदिदं रजतमित्यविद्यमानसत्वप्रतीतौ हि प्रवर्तते। तस्मादुभयविलक्षणं न किञ्चित्।
The phenomenon of silvery mirage is indescribable, but the phenomenon exists. If silvery mirage does not appear, phenomenon does not exist, and obviously without it illusion is not possible. On accepting the illusion as true, the silvery-mirage is understood as not present, and though not obvious, non-illusion becomes a reality. Therefore, in both ways, reality is understood.
"विश्वं सत्यम्" । "यच्चिकेत सत्यमित्" । "कविर्मनीषी परिभूः स्वयम्भूर्याथातथ्यतोर्थान् व्यदधाच्छाश्वतीभ्यः समाभ्यः" इत्यादिश्रुतेश्च ॥१६ ॥
"The universe exists," "the created world is truly existing." "The all-knowing, one who inspires the mind, all superior, self-existent, has created the truly existent from time immemorial."–states Vedic testimonial.
