B.G 2.16

नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः। उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः ॥ २-१६॥

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.

From inappropriate action, there can never be happiness and from appropriate action there can be no misery. 'Abhava' indicates misery.

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.

"The word 'sadbhāva' indicates happiness in all its usages and 'abhāva' indicates misery in all its usage”–states shabdanirnaya, the ancient dictionary.

"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)

Brahman is never to be known as 'asat', the non-existent or unreal.

"One who knows Brahman as non-being (asat), himself becomes miserable"–thus are the ancient instructions.

'anta' means conclusive decision.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.