Gita 02.26 – Materialism makes meaning meaningless and lamentation pointless
atha cainaṁ nitya-jātaṁ
nityaṁ vā manyase mṛtam
tathāpi tvaṁ mahā-bāho
nainaṁ śocitum arhasi (Bg 2.26)
Word-for-word:
atha — if, however; ca — also; enam — this soul; nitya-jātam — always born; nityam — forever; vā — either; manyase — you so think; mṛtam — dead; tathā api — still; tvam — you; mahā-bāho — O mighty-armed one; na — never; enam — about the soul; śocitum — to lament; arhasi — deserve.
Translation:
If, however, you think that the soul [or the symptoms of life] will always be born and die forever, you still have no reason to lament, O mighty-armed.
Explanation:
atha cainaṁ nitya-jātaṁ: If you think the soul is ever born
nityaṁ vā manyase mṛtam: or you think the soul ever dies
tathāpi tvaṁ mahā-bāho: still, O mighty-armed one,
nainaṁ śocitum arhasi: there is no need to lament.
Kṛṣṇa now continues His instruction to free Arjuna from grief (śoka). That theme persists. Previously, it was na tvaṁ śocitum arhasi; here, it is nainaṁ śocitum arhasi. The theme remains the same—do not grieve or lament—but the reasoning is diametrically opposite.
In the previous verse, the reasoning was that because the soul is eternal and indestructible, there is no cause for lamentation. In this verse, Kṛṣṇa considers the possibility that the soul does not exist at all.
Various philosophies have always existed in some form, but never as prominently misleading as they are today—particularly those concluding that we are nothing but material creatures. Such misconceptions have never been as widespread as they are in today’s social setting.
Kṛṣṇa addresses certain worldviews present at that time and refutes them, but our focus will be on how His argument applies in today’s context. Notably, Kṛṣṇa remains non-specific about whom He is referring to.
If someone believes that the soul is always born (atha cainaṁ nitya-jātaṁ) and always destroyed (nityaṁ vā manyase mṛtam), it implies that the soul is created whenever life begins and ceases to exist when life ends. In other words, there is no soul separate from bodily existence. This, of course, aligns with today’s widely accepted materialistic conception of the self.
Much of the intellectual world today holds that there is no independent self as a distinct locus of identity and personality. Instead, our sense of self is seen as an illusion created by the firing of neuronal cells in the brain. According to this view, all that exists is matter, and consciousness arises merely as an epiphenomenon—a byproduct of material processes. It has no independent reality or source. Consciousness does not originate from the soul; rather, it emerges from neuronal activity and the resulting electrochemical states. As long as the neural circuitry is active, consciousness persists.
Hence, nitya-jātaṁ and nityaṁ mṛtam imply that consciousness arises whenever chemicals interact in a particular way and ceases when those chemicals become inactive.
Setting aside the fact that no one has demonstrated that chemicals can produce consciousness, there is not even a theoretical explanation of how unconscious matter can suddenly become conscious. How can unconscious matter give rise to something that experiences matter—that is, consciousness? Beyond the lack of empirical or theoretical support for this idea, we can also examine its internal incoherence.
Internal incoherence means that an idea contradicts itself when analyzed logically. The entire scientific endeavor is an attempt to make sense of the world. Newton, for example, saw a fruit falling and wanted to understand why. His reasoning led him to the concept of gravity, which he then formulated mathematically as F=𝐺𝑚₁𝑚₂/𝑟². Science, at its core, is a quest for meaning—an attempt to understand the order underlying natural phenomena.
But if nothing exists beyond chemicals—if they are merely interacting and changing states in the brain—then both comprehension and incomprehension are simply different chemical states. As such, there is nothing inherently special about one state or undesirable about another.
This would mean that Newton formulating the equation F=𝐺𝑚₁𝑚₂/𝑟² was just one electrochemical state in his brain, while not formulating it was merely another. In this view, these electrochemical states have no intrinsic meaning—they are just chemical reactions. Moreover, if only matter exists, there is no conscious entity to perceive meaning in these states at all.
For example, if we see a pattern of squiggles or shapes on the ground or on paper, we might assume they are letters from an unknown language. However, if we are certain that no one exists who understands any language—or that language itself does not exist—then the pattern on the paper cannot have any meaning.
The meaningfulness of a pattern arises because someone has imparted meaning to it, and someone else can interpret that meaning. But if no such person existed, then the very concept of meaning would become meaningless.
Materialism makes meaning meaningless—because even materialism itself is a search for meaning. Materialists argue that it is irrational to believe in something we cannot see, such as the soul. Therefore, they conclude that matter is all that exists. But in doing so, materialism, too, attempts to make sense of reality.
However, this very idea of “sense” collapses under materialism, because if only matter exists, there is no conscious entity to perceive anything as either sense or nonsense. And if meaning itself is meaningless, then even grief loses its significance. There would be no reason to lament when things go wrong, because ultimately, everything would be devoid of meaning. In this view, life is reduced to nothing more than neuronal firings—leading to a state of utter meaninglessness. This is the grave consequence of such a worldview.
In another way, materialism reduces our very sense of self—our I-ness—to an illusion. According to this view, there is no real “I” who observes; the sense of being a conscious subject, the feeling that “I am a person observing things,” is merely an illusion.
If materialism is true, then the entire notion of a subject—the observer—is false. There is no actual “I” perceiving reality—there are only brain chemicals at work. Yet, none of these chemicals are themselves conscious, nor do they possess a sense of I-ness.
Our consciousness is the fundamental gateway to reality. It is because ‘I’ exist and ‘I’ perceive that I can sense the world around me and attempt to make sense of it—even by considering the philosophy of materialism.
However, materialism undermines the very ‘I’ that seeks to understand reality, rendering it meaningless and non-existent. If the person experiencing emotions is merely an illusion, then all emotions themselves become meaningless. By this logic, accepting materialism leads to the rejection of the materialist, for there is no conscious subject to observe anything at all. And if no subject exists, then no one exists to propose the theory of materialism in the first place.
In this way, materialism erases the materialist, strips meaning of all significance, and nullifies emotions—including grief. Under this worldview, even our experiences of happiness and sorrow are reduced to nothing more than electrochemical patterns.
Many prominent scientists have pointed out the absurdity of such an explanation. For example, Heisenberg and Schrödinger both acknowledged that while science can provide us with remarkably consistent patterns and enable us to manipulate them, it fails to offer satisfactory answers to the core questions of human existence.
Other eminent scientists have highlighted the limitations of the scientific worldview, especially when science weds itself with materialism. However, science need not be confined to materialism. With the advent of quantum physics, more and more scientists are recognizing not only the reality of consciousness but also its independent nature—a reality that provides access to other realms of existence. In this way, science is gradually becoming more open to spirituality.
If one accepts materialism and believes that there is no soul, then there is no reason to lament. Lamentation, after all, is nothing more than the firing of chemicals in the brain. Just as chemicals transition from one state to another, there is no tangible difference between one chemical state—the state of grief—and another—the state of happiness.
Therefore, from an intellectual perspective, there is no need to lament, because lamentation, meaning, and life itself all become illusions.
By using the term mahā-bāho, Krishna is telling Arjuna, “You are a powerful person. You can fight powerful enemies, and similarly, you can fight the enemy of this fallacious belief that there is no soul distinct from the body.” While this is implied in the verse, the direct message here is that, even if you accept materialism, there is no reason to lament.
This argument will be further developed in the next verse, which we will discuss in our next session.
Thank you.
Leave A Comment