B.G 2.16
nāsatō vidyatē bhāvō nābhāvō vidyatē sataḥ। ubhayōrapi dr̥ṣṭō'ntastvanayōstattvadarśibhiḥ ॥ 2-16॥
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.
na ca yuddhātparalōkaduḥkhamiti śōkaḥ। asatkarmaṇaḥ sakāśāt bhāvō nāsti satkarmaṇaḥ sakāśāt abhāvō nāstīti niyatatvāt।
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.
"sadbhāvavācinaḥ śabdāḥ sarvē tē sukhavācakāḥ। abhāvavācinaḥ śabdāḥ sarvē tē duḥkhavācakāḥ" ॥ iti śabdanirṇayē।
"The word 'sadbhāva' indicates happiness in all its usages and 'abhāva' indicates misery in all its usage”–states shabdanirnaya, the ancient dictionary.
"sadbhāvē sādhubhāvē ca sadityētatprayujyatē। praśastē karmaṇi tathā sacchabdaḥ pārtha yujyatē॥" iti vakṣyamāṇatvāt। (gītā. 17-26)
"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)
"asannēva sa bhavati, asadbrahmēti vēda cēt" ityādēśca।
"One who knows Brahman as non-being (asat), himself becomes miserable"–thus are the ancient instructions.
antō nirṇayaḥ।
'anta' means conclusive decision.
na cāvidyāmānavidyamānayōrutpattināśaniṣēdhakōyaṁ ślōkaḥ। pratyakṣavirōdhāt। sanniti vyavahriyamāṇamēva padārthasvarūpamutpattēḥ prāṅgnāśōttaraṁ ca nāstīti sarvalōkō vyavaharati। na ca viparyayē kiñcinmānam। idaṁ tu vākyamanyathāsiddham।
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.
"ādyantayōḥ sarvakāryamasadēvēti niścitam। yadyasanna viśēṣōtra jāyatē kōtra jāyatē॥ vyaktāvapi samaṁ yētadanavasthānyathā bhavēt। ēvaṁ nāśēpi bōddhavyamatōsannēva jāyatē॥ tathāpyabhēdānubhavāt kāryakāraṇayōḥ sadā। bhēdasya cāviśēṣēṇa dēhōgāt kṣititāmiti॥ vyavahārō bhavēdyasmādbalyēvānubhavaḥ sadā॥" iti brahmatarkē।
"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
na ca sadasadvilakṣaṇaṁ kiñcidastītyatra kiñcinmānam। na cāsataḥ khyātyayōgāt satō bādhāyōgādubhayavilakṣaṇaṁ bhrāntiviṣayam। asataḥ khyātyayōgāditi vadatōsataḥ khyātirabhūnna vā? yadi nābhūt na tatkhyātinirākaraṇam। yadyabhūt tathāpi।
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.
na cāsatōsatvēna bhrāntau satvēna ca khyātirnāstītyatra kiñcinmānam। asadvyavahāralōpaprasaṅgācca। yadavidyamānaṁ rūpaṁ tasya sattvēna pratītērēva bhrāntitvācca।
"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.
anirvacanīyatvapakṣēpi sadidaṁ rajatamityavidyamānasattvapratītiṁ vinā na hi bhrāntitvam। bhrāntisattvāṅgīkārēpyabhrāntaṁ sadidaṁ rajatamityavidyamānasatvapratītau hi pravartatē। tasmādubhayavilakṣaṇaṁ na kiñcit।
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.
"viśvaṁ satyam" । "yaccikēta satyamit" । "kavirmanīṣī paribhūḥ svayambhūryāthātathyatōrthān vyadadhācchāśvatībhyaḥ samābhyaḥ" ityādiśrutēśca ॥16 ॥
"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.
