Gita 02.16 – Matter has no existence in the sense of having no lasting consequence
nāsato vidyate bhāvo
nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ
ubhayor api dṛṣṭo ’ntas
tv anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ (Bg 2.16)
Word-for-word:
na — never; asataḥ — of the nonexistent; vidyate — there is; bhāvaḥ — endurance; na — never; abhāvaḥ — changing quality; vidyate — there is; sataḥ — of the eternal; ubhayoḥ — of the two; api — verily; dṛṣṭaḥ — observed; antaḥ — conclusion; tu — indeed; anayoḥ — of them; tattva — of the truth; darśibhiḥ — by the seers.
Translation:
Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.
Explanation:
Bhagavad-gītā 2.16 is a very important philosophical verse that moves beyond merely addressing the difference between the body and the soul to highlighting a fundamental distinction between matter and spirit.
nāsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ : From a poetic perspective, this is an example of what is known in English as chiasmus. Chiasmus is a figure of speech in which the second part of a sentence involves an inversion of the units in the first part.
For instance, John F. Kennedy famously said, “Ask not what the nation has done for you; ask what you have done for the nation.” Here, the elements ‘nation’ and ‘you’ are inverted between the two parts. In the first clause, ‘the nation’ comes first, followed by ‘you.’ In the second clause, the order is reversed: ‘you’ comes first, followed by ‘the nation.’ This inversion constitutes the literary device called chiasmus.
This is reflected in this verse as well. nāsato vidyate bhāvo : the terms asat and bhāvaḥ appear in the first line. These are inverted in the second line, nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ. Of course, the words are slightly modified for grammatical purposes to ensure the meaning remains intact. The word ‘sat’ has multiple meanings—it can refer to eternity, as well as existence. The essential point Kṛṣṇa is emphasizing is that we must observe and learn about these two natures.
ubhayor api dṛṣṭo ’ntas : Normally, dṛṣṭānta refers to an example or narrative used to illustrate a concept. However, when separated into two words, ‘dṛṣṭa’ and ‘anta’ refers to the “end of vision,” meaning the conclusion of a discussion. Here, “vision” is used more in the sense of understanding rather than literal seeing.
tv anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ : This conclusion is made by tattva-darśibhiḥ. Tattva refers to the truth, and darśibhiḥ refers to those who are seers of the truth.
These seers of the truth have concluded that for the asat, there is no bhāvaḥ. Bhāvaḥ means endurance, while sat refers to eternity or existence. If the word “eternity” is used here, it results in a tautology—a meaningless repetition.
If we say, “Of the eternal, there is no cessation” or “Of the temporary, there is no endurance,” it doesn’t convey much meaning. Temporary inherently implies a lack of endurance, while eternal inherently implies the absence of cessation. Such statements merely serve as definitions of the terms temporary and eternal.
However, this is not what Kṛṣṇa is doing here. Kṛṣṇa is engaging in philosophical analysis, not teaching vocabulary. Therefore, the word ‘sat’ in this context is more appropriately understood as referring to existence rather than eternity. Thus, the verse asserts: “Of the non-existent, there is no endurance.”
If we consider the broader context, in the previous verses, Kṛṣṇa has discussed the distinction between matter and spirit. In the subsequent verses, He continues to emphasize this difference. Therefore, the central subject is the distinction between matter and spirit. Keeping this in mind helps clarify the meaning of this verse.
Kṛṣṇa is stating that matter is temporary, while spirit is eternal. This is the understanding of the tattva-darśis—the seers of the truth. The conclusion they have drawn is encapsulated in nāsato vidyate bhāvaḥ: “Of the non-existent, there is no endurance.”
In what sense is matter considered non-existent? Does it mean that matter doesn’t exist at all? Clearly, that is not the case. For instance, if I bang my head against a wall, I cannot claim the wall doesn’t exist. At the very least, the pain caused by my brashness confirms the wall’s existence. Based on the experience of the pain and the appearance of the wall, it is reasonable to infer that something out there exists, which I identify as a wall.
Once, one of Prabhupāda’s disciples attempted to test this idea. Prabhupāda had said that the material world is unreal, so the disciple tried walking through a wall. All he got for his effort was a bang on the head. When he brought this up with Prabhupāda, the explanation was clear—the material world is unreal in the sense that it is temporary, not in the sense that it is non-existent.
Sometimes, terms need to be redefined from a philosophical perspective, which may give them meanings different from their conventional usage. Here, nāsato vidyate bhāvaḥ implies that the material world is non-existent in the sense that it is temporary—it lacks endurance. From the perspective of eternity, the material world is considered non-existent. It is fleeting, here for a moment and gone the next. Once it is gone, it is almost as if it had never existed at all.
Just as we experience dreams that feel incredibly real while we are in them, those same dreams lose all semblance of reality once we wake up. Similarly, while it may not feel exactly the same with our day-to-day life in the outer world, a comparable principle applies. We have lived countless lives and assumed numerous identities in those lives, yet all of them are now gone. Nothing remains—not even a memory.
We may argue that karmic consequences persist, and that is valid. This is why matter is not entirely non-existent. However, from the perspective of eternity—from the viewpoint of the soul’s eternal existence—the effects of matter are ultimately inconsequential. In that sense, it is almost as if matter is non-existent.
nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ : Of the eternal, there is no cessation. Again, this serves as an example of how the temporary lacks true existence. For instance, we may have played a cricket match—or any sport—during our childhood and lost. At that time, it might have felt devastating, but now it no longer matters. We may not even remember it, and if we do, we might feel a little embarrassed, but that’s all. It holds no significance now. In the same way, of the non-existent, there is no endurance, and of the eternal, there is no cessation.
The soul is an eternal reality, and that will never change. Therefore, that which is unchanging should not distract us from that which is fleeting. For Arjuna, his identity as a soul and his relationship with the Supreme Soul—topics that will be discussed later in the Bhagavad-gītā—are, for now, eternal and unchanging realities. Acting in accordance with this nature and living in the light of the soul’s essence will lead Arjuna to an eternal result. In contrast, allowing himself to be distracted by that which is fleeting, by that which is non-enduring, will deprive him of that result.
Just as when a person is traveling on a road, what matters is the road itself. The scenery around the road is fine to glance at, but it is passing. If one becomes too enamored with the scenery and veers off course because of it, the person may miss the road and fail to reach the destination. Similarly, whatever happens at the material level is peripheral to our core purpose in life. To the extent that we allow ourselves to be affected by these distractions, to that extent we become diverted from our true purpose.
The whole point of this philosophical analysis of the eternality of spirit and the ephemerality of matter is to instill steadiness, persistence, and constancy in Arjuna’s spiritual pursuit. This will be further emphasized in the upcoming verses. However, this verse specifically highlights that matter is temporary, so Arjuna should not become overly attached to it. In this way, we see that it is a followup if tāṁs titikṣasva bhārata (Bg 2.14) and yaṁ hi na vyathayanty ete (Bg 2.15).
Impersonalists may attempt to use the term “non-existent” to claim that matter doesn’t exist at all, but this leads to a whole different set of questions. They cannot answer, for example, where matter comes from or how spirit comes under the influence of matter—two fundamental questions that Māyāvādīs find difficult to answer. The key point here, however, is that Kṛṣṇa is not speaking about non-existence in the absolute sense. Kṛṣṇa acknowledges the existence of Bhīṣma, Droṇa, and the other kings assembled, at least in the present moment. He has also stated that they will continue to exist. Moreover, Kṛṣṇa does not entirely reject matter; in Bhagavad-gītā 7.4, He says that matter is His energy. Therefore, what comes from the real is real—it is energy, and it is also real. In this verse, Kṛṣṇa is discussing the existent and the non-existent in terms of their eternality and ephemerality.
Thank you.
Leave A Comment