2.11-2.30: counters first argument – compassion – by Jnana

BG 2.12

na tv evaham jatu nasam

na tvam neme janadhipah

na caiva na bhavishyamah

sarve vayam atah param

SYNONYMS

na — never; tu — but; eva — certainly; aham — I; jatu — at any time; na — did not; asam — exist; na — not; tvam — you; na — not; ime — all these; jana-adhipah — kings; na — never; ca — also; eva — certainly; na — not; bhavishyamah — shall exist; sarve vayam — all of us; atah param — hereafter.

TRANSLATION

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. na tv evaham jatu nasam, so he said certainly not but aham na asam, there was not a time when I did not exist. na tvam neme janadhipah, nor you, nor these kings, na ca iva, nor even certainly in future na bhavishyamah. So there was not a time in the past when I, you, and these kings did not exist in the present, nor in the future (bhavishyamah), will any of us -atah param- here after, cease to exist.

Discussing the flaw in Mayavada-The Impersonal Idea about God

This is a very significant verse in the overall message of BG. So Arjuna’s fear was that, these are my relatives, if I kill them, what will happen? They all will die; so Krishna says, no there was never a time when they did not exist, nor will there be a time when they will not exist. That means we are all eternal.

Krishna before teaching about soul very directly, he emphasizes on eternity of personality. What is the meaning of this? He emphasizes that all of us are eternal nature. And eternally we are persons.

Case 1 – Is individuality an illusion?

Impersonal idea is the idea that I and you are an illusion, the identity of I is the biggest problem. So in the future when I will dissolve and merge in cosmic consciousness, then all miseries will end. But this idea is an illusory idea. It is a subtle illusion because we are denying and rejecting our individuality and personality.

Case 2 – Are we all God, but deluded to think as human?

Ramanujacharya in his Gita Bhasya keeps the point very simple and general. His Sri Bhasya is very intricate, wherein he gets into such solid arguments smashing apart Sharirika Bhasya which is a commentary on Vedanta Sutra by Shankaracharya. Ramanujacharya is running the (literary) battlefield pounding on all the arguments. Madhavacharya is also in the same mood in his commentary on Brahma Sutra Bhasya.

In his Gita Bhasya, Srila Ramanujacharya gives brief commentary, but only in a few verses. For example; in BG 2.12 he gave long and strong commentary. And Srila Prabhupada is paraphrasing his commentary over here, his point is very simple and very striking:

Mayavadi’s idea is that we all are Brahman, and somehow Brahman came under illusion. So we think that it is I & you as individuals. But in reality, when Brahman comes out of illusion, we all will merge into that cosmic consciousness (Brahman). If that is the case, then the question arises; why is Krishna telling here that you existed in the past, not only that, but you will also exist in future. Someone may say that Krishna is speaking with reference to material existence (in past and in future), as some kings might continue to remain in illusion from the past and stay illusioned in the future as well. But we know that Arjuna was enlightened and thus liberated.

Here, Lord Krishna is very categorical in saying, “Never was a time when I did not exist or You did not exist” this shows that eternally we are separate entities, and we don’t merge into one.

Mayavadi says sometime Brhaman (God) comes in illusion and till the time it is in illusion, we are here in the material world. When Brahman go’s back to supreme light; we all will go back. But here Krishna is saying that never was there a time, when I did not exist or you did not exist. So it indicates that our individuality is eternal.

Case 3 – Is eternity of individuality – a casual conventional talk or a deep philosophical reality?

Mayavadis may say it is not philosophical talk, but a conventional talk. For example, when a devotee says that I am hungry; in a day to day life we think his body or stomach is hungry and not his soul. So it is a conventional talk not philosophical talk. We say, you have built up (we don’t say your body has become fatty) – this means here we are generally not differentiating between body and soul in day to day level conventional talk, so we may sometimes differentiate when it is helpful.

But, Ramanujachraya said from context it is clear that it is not a conventional talk -> because in previous verse BG 2.11 Arjun has been condemned for talking at the level of illusion. So it not a casual talk, next verse is also philosophical 2.13, that is Dahino Asmin Yatha Deha…and even further verses are not casual talk, as it will be told to tolerate Matra Sparsas Tu Kaunteya…2.15 is Na sate Viyato Bhavo i.e. eternal never ceases to exist. So the overall tenure of this discussion from BG 2.10 is philosophical talk which is going on, not casual talk. As before and after this verse is philosophical, why will this verse be casual.

Even if it is considered casual talk, then also Krishna is saying: I existed in the past and will remain as an individual in future also.

Mayavadis said, Brahaman has taken a form, but they also agree that Krishna is never under illusion. Krishna is saying, I will continue to exist, not Brahaman is going to exist. It implies God is eternal and is an individual and so are we. So this verse refutes Mayavadi philosophy and establishes eternality and individuality of personality.

Srila Prabhupada quotes

nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām

eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān

tam ātma-sthaṁ ye ’nupaśyanti dhīrās

teṣāṁ śāntiḥ śāśvatī netareṣām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13)

nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām, so there are many nityas among them one nitya is special. There are many cetanas, conscious among whom one conscious being is special. And what is the specialty of that one conscious being? eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān, that One Being is maintaining other beings. And what is the specialty of that one being? If we come to know Him, then we become free from all miseries,

tam ātma-sthaṁ ye ’nupaśyanti dhīrās, so those Dhira, sober person who sees This Person in their heart tam ātma-sthaṁ ye ’nupaśyanti | teṣāṁ śāntiḥ śāśvatī netareṣām, (this inner realization of the Supreme Divinity) will attain sasvat Shanti, they will attain eternal peace.

So this way Srila Prabhupada very strongly refutes Mayavad, and he said Mayavad approach is like licking the honey from the outside

If someone is saying Krishna is also speaking under influence of ignorance, then the question arises; if Krishna is speaking under illusion of ignorance, then what is the use of hearing BG. The very premise of hearing from BG is that Krishna is enlightened, and Krishna is referring to His individuality in the first person and He is talking about the eternity of individuality of us that indicates that we are all individuals.