FolioCorpusBhagavad-gītā

Bhagavad-gītā 2.16

नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः । उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः ॥ १६ ॥
nāsato vidyate bhāvo
[naasato vidyate bhaavo]
nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ
[naabhaavo vidyate satah]
ubhayor api dṛṣṭo ’ntas
[ubhayor api drishto ’ntas]
tv anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ
[tv anayos tattva-darshibhih]
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 .
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
nāsato vidyate bhāvo
na
never
asataḥ
of the nonexistent
vidyate
there is
bhāvaḥ
endurance
nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ
na
never
abhāvaḥ
changing quality
vidyate
there is
sataḥ
of the eternal
ubhayor api dṛṣṭo ’ntas
ubhayoḥ
of the two
api
verily
dṛṣṭaḥ
observed
tv anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ
antaḥ
conclusion
tu
indeed
anayoḥ
of them
tattva
of the truth
darśibhiḥ
by the seers .
Important Words
  • asataḥ — of the nonexistent
    Genitive of asat — that which lacks being. Prabhupāda glosses asat as the temporary body. Sat-asat-viveka — discriminating the real from the unreal — is the entire epistemology of Vedānta in two syllables.
  • bhāvaḥ — enduring being
    Bhāva here is not 'feeling' but ontological persistence. The temporary has no bhāva — no real continuing existence. The verse is a definition of reality by duration.
  • abhāvaḥ — cessation
    Antonym of bhāva. The sat does not undergo abhāva. The grammar is symmetric and absolute: real ↔ enduring; unreal ↔ ceasing.
  • sataḥ — of the eternal
    Genitive of sat — that which truly is. The soul (and the Supreme Soul) are sat by nature. The whole Upaniṣadic and Gītā vocabulary of sat-cit-ānanda begins here.
  • tattva - darśibhiḥ — by seers of truth
    Tattva — *thatness*, the real principle; darśin — one who sees. Knowledge here is darśana, direct vision, not inference. The plural suggests a sampradāya — the truth is seen by a line of seers, and the verse reports their consensus.
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.
Classical Sanskrit analysis शास्त्रीय विश्लेषण
How Sanskrit scholars read this verse — split, rearranged, grammar-tagged. For the plain English distilled meaning, jump to Plain meaning below.
Auto-generated study layers — original analysis of the public-domain śloka. Review against a published edition for academic work.
Plain meaning (तात्पर्य · Tātparya)
A foundational metaphysical axiom: the impermanent (asat) never truly is, and the eternal (sat) never ceases. Seers of reality have completed this analysis once for all. Arjuna's grief, fixed on bodies that fall under asat, has no rational ground.
Further notes (विवरण · Vivaraṇa)
This śloka is among the most discussed in Indian philosophy. Vedānta reads sat as Brahman/ātman and asat as the mutable body-world; Sāṅkhya reads sat as puruṣa and asat as the transformations of prakṛti; Buddhists in turn pressed the verse against eternalist readings. All schools concede that this verse defines the basic eternal/transient distinction.
Prose order (अन्वय · Anvaya)
असतः भावः न विद्यते, सतः अभावः न विद्यते । तु अनयोः उभयोः अपि अन्तः तत्त्व-दर्शिभिः दृष्टः ।
asataḥ bhāvaḥ na vidyate, sataḥ abhāvaḥ na vidyate | tu anayoḥ ubhayoḥ api antaḥ tattva-darśibhiḥ dṛṣṭaḥ |
Of the unreal there is no being; of the real there is no non-being. The final truth of both has been seen by the seers of truth.
Word split (पदच्छेद · Padaccheda)
न असतः विद्यते भावः न अभावः विद्यते सतः । उभयोः अपि दृष्टः अन्तः तु अनयोः तत्त्व-दर्शिभिः ॥
na asataḥ vidyate bhāvaḥ na abhāvaḥ vidyate sataḥ | ubhayoḥ api dṛṣṭaḥ antaḥ tu anayoḥ tattva-darśibhiḥ ||
Grammar (व्याकरण · Vyākaraṇa)
SanskritIASTGrammarMeaning
न विद्यते na vidyate √विद् pass. (passive) pres. (present) 3sg.ātm. (ātmanepada / middle voice), with न does not exist
असतः asataḥ अ + सत् (pres. (present) part. of √अस्) gen.sg. (genitive singular)n., 'of the non-existent' of the unreal
भावः bhāvaḥ भाव (m.) nom.sg. (nominative singular), 'being' being, existence
अभावः abhāvaḥ अ + भाव (m.) nom.sg. (nominative singular), 'non-being' non-being
सतः sataḥ सत् gen.sg. (genitive singular)n., 'of the existent' of the real
उभयोः ubhayoḥ उभय (pron. (pronoun)/adj.) gen.du. (genitive dual) of both
अपि api ind. (indeclinable), 'even / also' also
दृष्टः dṛṣṭaḥ √दृश् p.p.p. (past passive participle) nom.sg. (nominative singular)m. seen
अन्तः antaḥ अन्त (m.) nom.sg. (nominative singular), 'conclusion, settled view' conclusion, final truth
तु tu ind. (indeclinable), emphatic / contrastive indeed
अनयोः anayoḥ इदम् (dem. (demonstrative)) gen.du. (genitive dual) of these two
तत्त्व-दर्शिभिः tattva-darśibhiḥ तत्त्व (n.) + दर्शिन् (adj.) ins.pl. (instrumental plural)m., tatpuruṣa cpd. (compound), 'truth-seers' by those who see the truth
Purport

There is no endurance of the changing body. That the body is changing every moment by the actions and reactions of the different cells is admitted by modern medical science; and thus growth and old age are taking place in the body. But the spirit soul exists permanently, remaining the same despite all changes of the body and the mind. That is the difference between matter and spirit. By nature, the body is ever changing, and the soul is eternal. This conclusion is established by all classes of seers of the truth, both impersonalist and personalist. In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (2.12.38) it is stated that Viṣṇu and His abodes all have self-illuminated spiritual existence ( jyotīṁṣi viṣṇur bhuvanāni viṣṇuḥ ). The words existent and nonexistent refer only to spirit and matter. That is the version of all seers of truth. This is the beginning of the instruction by the Lord to the living entities who are bewildered by the influence of ignorance. Removal of ignorance involves the reestablishment of the eternal relationship between the worshiper and the worshipable and the consequent understanding of the difference between the part-and-parcel living entities and the Supreme Personality of Godhead. One can understand the nature of the Supreme by thorough study of oneself, the difference between oneself and the Supreme being understood as the relationship between the part and the whole. In the Vedānta-sūtras, as well as in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the Supreme has been accepted as the origin of all emanations. Such emanations are experienced by superior and inferior natural sequences. The living entities belong to the superior nature, as it will be revealed in the Seventh Chapter. Although there is no difference between the energy and the energetic, the energetic is accepted as the Supreme, and the energy or nature is accepted as the subordinate. The living entities, therefore, are always subordinate to the Supreme Lord, as in the case of the master and the servant, or the teacher and the taught. Such clear knowledge is impossible to understand under the spell of ignorance, and to drive away such ignorance the Lord teaches the Bhagavad-gītā for the enlightenment of all living entities for all time.

— A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda
Gauḍīya Ācāryas
Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura Gauḍīya
Translation
16. There is no permanent existence for the body, and no cessation of existence for the soul. Those who see things in truth see this conclusion about both of these.
Commentary

The previous verse described the results for those who have attained the level of discrimination. Actually as śruti says, the soul is not attached to matter: asaṅgo hy ayaṁ puruṣaḥ. (Bṛhad Āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.15) Thus, the jīva does not have a relationship with the subtle or gross bodies and their products such as lamentation and bewilderment. This relationship is caused by ignorance. This is explained in this verse. For the soul, there is no existence (bhāvaḥ) of lamentation and bewilderment for their shelter, the body (asataḥ), since they have qualities opposed to the qualities of the soul. And there is no non-existence (abhāvaḥ) of the jīva with its eternal form (sataḥ). The conclusion (antaḥ) about these two—the body and the soul—has been seen by the seers of truth. By this conclusion, there will be no lamentation or bewilderment arising from seeing the body and things related to the body, because Bhīṣma and others of the opposing party as well as you and your allies are indestructible, being eternal. How can Bhīṣma and others be destroyed, and why do you lament for them? That is the meaning of this verse.

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Gauḍīya
Translation
16. There is no permanent existence for the body, and no change for the soul. Those who see things as they are realize this conclusion about both of these.
Commentary

In this way, the Lord has criticized Arjuna’s stance of being learned, because of his inappropriate lamentation. Worship of Himself alone is the means of destroying lamentation, and this arises from recognizing the difference between the worshipper (jīva) and the object of worship (the Lord). Thus the Lord has taught the real (not illusory) dualism of the jīvas,or aṁśas (dependents), the worshippers, from Himself, the aṁśi (shelter of the dependents), the object of worthy of worship. Now there are statements like the following: yadātma-tattvena tu brahma-tattvaṁ dīpopameneha yuktaḥ prapaśyet ajaṁ dhruvaṁ sarva-tattvair viśuddhaṁ jñātvā devaṁ mucyate sarva pāśaiḥ When the yogī realizes the Brahman, through the realization of the ātmā which is like a lamp, after knowing the unborn, unchanging, pure Lord with all His ornaments, he attains liberation from all bondage. Śvetāsvatara Upaniṣad 2.15 Such statements show that the person who has knowledge about the svarūpa of conscious aṁśa, the jīva, is qualified for knowledge of the svarūpa of the conscious aṁśī, the Supreme Lord. Because of such statements, first knowledge of the jīva is taught to all persons without distinction, including the saniṣṭha devotees. With this and the following verses, the Lord begins by giving an understanding of the difference between body and ātmā, since such understanding should not come in the middle of the work. An object which is subject to change, such as the body (asataḥ), does not have unchangeable nature (bhāvaḥ). The unchanging ātmā (sataḥ) does not have the nature of changing (abhāvaḥ). The body has the nature of change and the soul has the nature of not changing. This conclusion (antaḥ) about the body, designated by the word “asat—temporary,” and soul, designated by the word “sat—permanent,” is realized (dṛṣṭaḥ) by those men who know the natures of these two (tattva darśibhiḥ). Destructible, unconscious things such as the body is called asat and the indestructible soul with consciousness is called sat. The same conclusion is seen in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa: jyotīṁṣi viṣṇur bhuvanāni viṣṇur vanāni viṣṇur girayo diśaṣ ca nadyaḥ samudrāś ca sa eva sarvaṁ yad asti yan nāsti ca vipra-varya Viṣṇu is the planets. Viṣṇu is the worlds. Viṣṇu is the forests, mountains and directions. He is the rivers and oceans. He alone is everything which is conscious (yad asti) and unconscious (yan nāsti), O best of the vipras. Viṣṇu Puṛṇa 2.12.38 The word nāsti (does not exist) refers to dull matter and the word asti (exists) refers to the conscious entity. This is described in later verses: vastv asti kim kutracid ādi-madhya-paryanta hīnaṁ satataika rūpam: is there any object anywhere which has no beginning, middle or end and remains continually in one form? (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 2.12.41) Thus nāsti means dull matter and asti means a conscious entity, by the explanation in the verse of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa itself. Some say that the Lord speaks this verse in order to establish sat karya vāda, the idea of saṅkhya philosophers that the effect is inherent in the cause, but this is not the intention, since the verse merely serves to establish the true nature of body and soul, for a person bewildered by lack of ascertainment of the nature of body and soul, by eradicating the confusion concerning them. [Note: Sat kārya vāda maintains that the effect is inherent in the cause, since something which is real (effect) cannot arise from what is non-existent. By this, they conclude that prakṛti alone is the cause of the evolution and destruction of the universe, without the necessity of God. There is a similarity with the statement of this verse: there is no creation (na bhāva) of the non-existent (asat). But the meaning of the verse is: there is no permanence (na bhāva) of the body (asat).]

Bhūrijana Dāsa Gauḍīya
Commentary

This is another "slap" given by Krsna. Krsna is saying: "Those who are seers of the truth, not you, you are lamenting!" To explain this point that "existence" means "eternality" and "non‑existence" means "temporality", Krsna explains the next two verses.

Study Notes — Gauranga Priya Dāsa
Gauranga Priya Dāsa Study
Bhakti-śāstrī Notes, ISKCON Chowpatty (2009)
Theme

This verse gives the vision of “seers of truth” – It is the beginning of instruction by the Lord to the

living entities who are bewildered by influence of ignorance

Of the non-existent (material body) there is no endurance
Of the eternal (the soul) there is no change
Focus of Learning

(a) Difference between matter (body) and spirit

Body – Modern science admits that the body is changing at every moment
Spirit – Spirit soul exists permanently despite all changes of body and mind
All opinions agree – This conclusion is established by all classes of seers of truth – both Impersonalists and personalists
Supporting Reference – Ref. Vishnu Purana – “Vishnu and His abodes all have self-illuminated spiritual existences”. The words existent and non-existent refer only to spirit and matter

(b) Influence of ignorance – Living entities are bewildered and identify themselves with the body or

mind. Two kinds of ignorance/misgivings are:

Identifying with matter
Identifying oneself as God

(c) Removal of ignorance – It involves:

Re-establish relationship – Re-establishment of the eternal relationship of the worshiper and worshipable
Correct understanding of duality – Consequent understanding of the difference between the part and parcel living entities and the Supreme Personality of Godhead

SUMMARISED THEME 2B:

VISION OF “SEERS OF TRUTH” (2.16 – 2.25)

Vision by those who view the world based on scriptures. Shown by 4 points:

1. Clear vision helps one avoid lamentation on bodily platform (2.16)

No death for soul and no endurance for the body
This implies Kauravas cannot escape death even if Arjuna does not kill

2. One can see that no sin is involved in such violence because (2.17 – 2.20)

It is done under Krishna’s direction
And with knowledge of soul and body

3. Change of body is compared to change of dress (2.22)

4. No weapon can kill or harm the soul (2.23 – 2.24)

SUMMARISED THEME 2C

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOUL (2.17 – 2.25)

1. Eternally an individual (2.12) identity and part and parcel of the Supreme

2. Soul is unborn (2.21) and does not take birth

3. Soul is indestructable and eternal (2.18) and therefore never dies

4. Soul is immeasurable (2.18) – It is too small to be measured by any material means

Ref. Svetasvatara Upanisad – 1/10,000th tip of a hair (2.17 purport)

5. Soul never undergoes changes

Soul is steady (2.20) – does not undergo six changes like the body
Immutable – (2.21 & 2.25)
Never changes like matter - Unlike body which goes through six changes (2.25 purport)
Never become God - Soul always remains atomic to Infinite Supreme (2.25 purport)
Cannot be cut, burnt, dried or wet (2.23)
Immovable, unchangeable, everlasting and eternally the same (2.24)

6. Position of soul

Situated in the region of the heart (2.17 & 2.22 & Mundaka Upanishad)
Present everywhere (Sarva-Gata) (2.24) – Living entities are also present in sun and fire

7. How to perceive the soul

Soul is invisible and inconceivable (2.25) – No human experiements can conceive the soul
Symptom of the soul– Soul is perceived by ‘individual consciousness’ (2.17 purport)
The only proof for the soul– Vedic scriptures – Sruti (2.25 purport)

8. Influence of soul – Pervades entire body (Mundaka Upanishad)

Analogy: Like sun pervades entire universe and maintains, similarly light of soul maintains the material body
Analogy: Active principle of medicine spreads all over the body

9. Effect on life airs on the soul – Soul is surrounded by 5 kinds of life airs

Hatha Yoga – helps in liberation

(d) Understanding the nature of the Supreme

One can understand by through study of oneself, the difference between oneself and the Supreme being understood as the relationship between the part and the whole
Supreme has been accepted as the source of all emanations in the Vedanta sutras and the Srimad Bhagavatam
Living entities belong to the superior nature (Ref. Bg. 7.5)
Although there is a difference between energy and energetic, the energetic is accepted as the Supreme and energy or nature is accepted as the subordinate
This implies the living entities are always subordinate, just like ‘master and servant’, or ‘teacher and taught’

(e) Purpose of Bhagavad-gita

To drive away all ignorance (Refer to second point of this purport)
Enlightenment of all living entities for all time to come
Classical Ācāryas
Śrī Śaṅkarācārya Classical
Translation
2.16 Since 'the unreal has no being,' etc., for this reason also it is proper to bear cold, heat, etc. without becoming sorrowful or deluded. Asatah, of the unreal, of cold, heat, etc. together with their causes; na vidyate, there is no; bhavah, being, existence, reality; because heat, cold, etc. together with their causes are not substantially real when tested by means of proof. For they are changeful, and whatever is changeful is inconstant. As configurations like pot etc. are unreal since they are not perceived to be different from earth when tested by the eyes, so also are all changeful things unreal because they are not perceived to be different from their (material) causes, and also because they are not perceived before (their) origination and after destruction. Objection: If it be that [Here Ast. has the additional words 'karyasya ghatadeh, the effect, viz pot etc. (and)'.-Tr.] such (material) causes as earth etc. as also their causes are unreal since they are not perceived differently from their causes, in that case, may it not be urged that owing to the nonexistence of those (causes) there will arise the contingency of everything becoming unreal [An entity cannot be said to be unreal merely because it is non-different from its cause. Were it to be asserted as being unreal, then the cause also should be unreal, because there is no entity which is not subject to the law of cuase and effect.]? Vedantin: No, for in all cases there is the experience of two awarenesses, viz the awareness of reality, and the awareness of unreality. [In all cases of perception two awarenesses are involved: one is invariable, and the other is variable. Since the variable is imagined on the invariable, therefore it is proved that there is something which is the substratum of all imagination, and which is neither a cause nor an effect.] That in relation to which the awareness does not change is real; that in relation to which it changes is unreal. Thus, since the distinction between the real and the unreal is dependent on awareness, therefore in all cases (of empirical experiences) everyone has two kinds of awarenesses with regard to the same substratum: (As for instance, the experiences) 'The pot is real', 'The cloth is real', 'The elephant is real' (which experiences) are not like (that of) 'A blue lotus'. [In the empirical experience, 'A blue lotus', there are two awarenesses concerned with two entities, viz the substance (lotus) and the ality (blueness). In the case of the experience, 'The pot is real', etc. the awarenesses are not concerned with substratum and alities, but the awareness of pot,of cloth, etc. are superimposed on the awareness of 'reality', like that of 'water' in a mirage.] This is how it happens everywhere. [The coexistence of 'reality' and 'pot' etc. are valid only empirically according to the non-dualists; whereas the coexistence of 'blueness' and 'lotus' is real according to the dualists.] Of these two awareness, the awareness of pot etc. is inconstant; and thus has it been shown above. But the awareness of reality is not (inconstant). Therefore the object of the awareness of pot etc. is unreal because of inconstancy; but not so the object of the awareness of reality, because of its constancy. Objection: If it be argued that, since the awareness of pot also changes when the pot is destroyed, therefore the awareness of the pot's reality is also changeful? Vedantin: No, because in cloth etc. the awareness of reality is seen to persist. That awareness relates to the odjective (and not to the noun 'pot'). For this reason also it is not destroyed. [This last sentence has been cited in the f.n. of A.A.-Tr.] Objection: If it be argued that like the awareness of reality, the awareness of a pot also persists in other pots? Vedantin: No, because that (awareness of pot) is not present in (the awareness of) a cloth etc. Objection: May it not be that even the awareness of reality is not present in relation to a pot that has been destroyed? Vedantin: No, because the noun is absent (there). Since the awareness of reality corresponds to the adjective (i.e. it is used adjectivelly), therefore, when the noun is missing there is no possibility of its (that awareness) being an adjective. So, to what should it relate? But, again, the awareness of reality (does not cease) with the absence of an object৷৷ [Even when a pot is absent and the awareness of reality does not arise with regare to it, the awareness of reality persists in the region where the pot had existed. Some read nanu in place of na tu ('But, again'). In that case, the first portion (No,৷৷.since৷৷.adjective. So,৷৷.relate?) is a statement of the Vedantin, and the Objection starts from nanu punah sadbuddheh, etc. so, the next Objection will run thus: 'May it not be said that, when nouns like pot etc. are absent, the awareness of existence has no noun to alify, and therefore it becomes impossible for it (the awareness of existence) to exist in the same substratum?'-Tr.] Objection: May it not be said that, when nouns like pot etc. are absent, (the awareness of existence has no noun to alify and therefore) it becomes impossible for it to exist in the same substratum? [The relationship of an adjective and a noun is seen between two real entities. Therefore, if the relationship between 'pot' and 'reality' be the same as between a noun and an adjective, then both of them will be real entities. So, the coexistence of reality with a non-pot does not stand to reason.] Vedantin: No, because in such experiences as, 'This water exists', (which arises on seeing a mirage etc.) it is observed that there is a coexistence of two objects though one of them is non-existent. Therefore, asatah, of the unreal, viz body etc. and the dualities (heat, cold, etc.), together with their causes; na vidyate, there is no; bhavah, being. And similarly, satah, of the real, of the Self; na vidyate, there is no; abhavah, nonexistence, because It is constant everywhere. This is what we have said. Tu, but; antah, the nature, the conclusion (regarding the nature of the real and the unreal) that the Real is verily real, and the unreal is verily unreal; ubhayoh api, of both these indeed, of the Self and the non-Self, of the Real and the unreal, as explained above; drstah, has been realized thus; tattva-darsibhih, by the seers of Truth. Tat is a pronoun (Sarvanama, lit. name of all) which can be used with regard to all. And all is Brahman. And Its name is tat. The abstraction of tat is tattva, the true nature of Brahman. Those who are apt to realize this are tattva-darsinah, seers of Truth. Therefore, you too, by adopting the vision of the men of realization and giving up sorrow and delusion, forbear the dualities, heat, cold, etc. some of which are definite in their nature, and others inconstant , mentally being convinced that this (phenomenal world) is changeful, verily unreal and appears falsely like water in a mirage. This is the idea. What, again, is that reality which remains verily as the Real and surely for ever? This is being answered in, 'But know That', etc.
Śrī Rāmānujācārya Classical
Translation
2.16 'The unreal,' that is, the body, can never come into being. 'The real,' that is, the self, can never cease to be. The finale about these, the body and the self, which can be experienced, has been realised correctly by the seers of the Truth. As analyis ends in conclusion, the term 'finale' is here used. The meaning is this: Non-existence (i.e., perishableness) is the real nature of the body which is in itself insentient. Existence (i.e., imperishableness) is the real nature of the self, which is sentient. [What follows is the justification of describing the body as 'unreal' and as having 'never come into being.'] Non-existence has, indeed, the nature of perishableness, and existence has the nature of imperishableness, as Bhagavan Parasara has said: 'O Brahmana, apart from conscious entity there does not exist any group of things anywhere and at any time. Thus have I taught you what is real existence - how conscious entity is real, and all else is unreal' (V. P., 2.12.43 - 45). 'The Supreme Reality is considered as imperishable by the wise. There is no doubt that what can be obtained from a perishable substance is also perishable' (Ibid., 2.14.24). 'That entity which even by a change in time cannot come to possess a difference through modification etc., is real. What is that entity, O King? (It is the self who retains Its knowledge)' (Ibid., 2.13.100). It is said here also: 'These bodies ৷৷. are said to have an end' (2.18) and 'Know That (the Atman) to be indestructible' (2.17). It is seen from this that this (i.e., perishableness of the body and imperishableness of the self) is the reason for the designating the Atman as 'existence' (Sattva) and body as 'non-existence' (Asvattva). This verse has no reference to the doctrine of Satkaryavada (i.e., the theory that effects are present in the cause), as such a theory has no relevance here. Arjuna is deluded about the true nature of the body and the self; so what ought to be taught to him in order to remove his delusion, is discrimination between these two - what is alified by perishablenss and what, by imperishableness. This (declaration) is introduced in the following way: 'For the dead, or for the living' (2.11). Again this poin is made clear immediately (by the words), 'Know that to be indestructible ৷৷.' (2.17) and 'These bodies ৷৷. are said to have an end' (2.18). How the imperishableness of the self is to be understood, Sri Krsna now teaches:
Śrī Abhinavagupta Classical
Translation
2.16 Nasatah etc. And then, also following the common worldly practice [the Lord] says this : There is no [real] existence for what is non-existent i.e., the body [etc.], that is continuously perishing; for it is changing incessantly by stages. Again, never there is destruction for the ever existing Supreme Self, because of Its unchanging nature. So says the Veda too : 'Lo ! This Soul is of unchanging nature and [hence] is destructions' (the Br. U, IV, v. 14). Of These two : of what is existent and what is non-existent. Finality : the point of boundary where they come to an end. But is this permanent or transient which is perceived by persons who are prone to see the truth ? Having raised this doubt, [the Lord] says :
Swami Sivananda Classical
Translation
2.16 The unreal hath no being; there is non-being of the real; the truth about both has been seen by the knowers of the Truth (or the seers of the Essence).
Commentary

2.16 न not? असतः of the unreal? विद्यते is? भावः being? न not? अभावः nonbeing? विद्यते is? सतः of the real? उभयोः of the two? अपि also? दृष्टः (has been) seen? अन्तः the final truth? तु indeed? अनयोः of these? तत्त्वदर्शिभिः by the knowers of the Truth.Commentary -- The changeless? homogeneous Atman or the Self always exists. It is the only solid Reality. This phenomenal world of names and forms is ever changing. Hence it is unreal. The sage or the Jivanmukta is fully aware that the Self always exists and that this world is like a mirage. Through his Jnanachakshus or the eye of intuition? he directly cognises the Self. This world vanishes for him like the snake in the rope? after it has been seen that only the rope exists. He rejects the names and forms and takes the underlying Essence in all the names and forms? viz.? AstiBhatiPriya or Satchidananda or ExistenceKnowledgeBliss Absolute. Hence he is a Tattvadarshi or a knower of the Truth or the Essence.What is changing must be unreal. What is constant or permanent must be real.

Swami Gambhīrānanda Classical
Translation
2.16 Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no nonexistence. But the nature of both these, indeed, has been realized by the seers of Truth.
Shri Purohit Swami Classical
Translation
2.16 That which is not, shall never be; that which is, shall never cease to be. To the wise, these truths are self-evident.
Related values & verses
Related values
Tyaga (Renunciation / Letting Go)Karuna (Kindness / Compassion)Ahimsa (Non-violence / Compassion)Arjava (Simplicity / Straightforwardness)Tapas (Austerity / Discipline)Guru Bhakti (Reverence for Teacher)Atma Nigraha (Self-control)Daksya (Resourcefulness / Skill)
Related verses
BG 2.17 BG 8.20 BG 13.27 SB 1.3.33 SB 11.22.55 SB 11.28.6 CC Ādi 2.117 CC Madhya 20.146 CC Madhya 25.92 Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.6
Concepts
Bhava
Related lectures
Personal Guidance
The unreal has no continuing existence; the real never ceases to be — wisdom is learning to invest only in what abides.
Practical Applications
  • Audit one area of your life: how much of it is asat (impermanent) versus sat (eternal)?
  • Each evening, name one thing that proved itself impermanent today.
  • Invest your time and attention in proportion to a thing's reality, not its loudness.
Reflection Questions
  • Where am I still pouring real effort into the asat?
  • What sat — the eternal — am I underinvesting in?
Analogy

A wax seal pressed on water dissolves; pressed on stone, it endures. The seers of truth distinguish the medium from the impression: what cannot last has no real being, and what cannot perish has no real ending. Both verdicts come from sustained looking — tattva-darśibhiḥ.

📝 My note

Source: vedabase.io

← Read full Chapter 2