FolioCorpusBhagavad-gītā

Bhagavad-gītā 2.12

న త్వేవాహం జాతు నాసం న త్వం నేమే జనాధిపాః । న చైవ నభవిష్యామః సర్వే వయమతః పరమ్ ॥ ౧౨ ॥
na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ
[na tv evaaham jaatu naasam]
na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ
[na tvam neme janaadhipaah]
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
[na chaiva na bhavishyaamah]
sarve vayam ataḥ param
[sarve vayam atah param]
Word-for-word
na — never tu — but eva — certainly aham — I jātu — at any time na — did not āsam — exist na — not tvam — you na — not ime — all these jana - adhipāḥ — kings na — never ca — also eva — certainly na — not bhaviṣyāmaḥ — shall exist sarve vayam — all of us ataḥ param — hereafter .
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ
na
never
tu
but
na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
sarve vayam ataḥ param
eva
certainly
aham
I
jātu
at any time
na
did not
āsam
exist
na
not
tvam
you
na
not
ime
all these
jana - adhipāḥ
kings
na
never
ca
also
eva
certainly
na
not
bhaviṣyāmaḥ
shall exist
sarve vayam
all of us
ataḥ param
hereafter .
Important Words
  • jātu — at any time
    An emphatic 'ever'. Kṛṣṇa locks the door at both ends: at no past time did we not exist, at no future time will we cease. The eternity is bilateral, not just forward-going.
  • āsam — I was
    First person imperfect of √as — to be. Kṛṣṇa says of Himself: I was. The verse is a direct ātma-vacana — a self-statement by Bhagavān about His own eternal existence.
  • jana - adhipāḥ — the kings
    Not abstract souls but the specific kings on the battlefield. The eternality being taught is not philosophical only — it is about Bhīṣma, Droṇa, Duryodhana, every named warrior. The Gītā's metaphysics is always pointed at the immediate.
  • sarve vayam — all of us
    Compound — *all we*. The plurality of selves is affirmed: not one soul appearing as many, but many souls all eternal. Gauḍīya siddhānta defends this verse against monism.
  • ataḥ param — hereafter
    Literally 'beyond this'. Kṛṣṇa points to the future beyond the present body. The Gītā insists that 'hereafter' is real, not metaphorical.
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.
Purport

In the Vedas – in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad as well as in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad – it is said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the maintainer of innumerable living entities, in terms of their different situations according to individual work and reaction of work. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is also, by His plenary portions, alive in the heart of every living entity. Only saintly persons who can see, within and without, the same Supreme Lord can actually attain to perfect and eternal peace. nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān tam ātma-sthaṁ ye ’nupaśyanti dhīrās teṣāṁ śāntiḥ śāśvatī netareṣām ( Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13) The same Vedic truth given to Arjuna is given to all persons in the world who pose themselves as very learned but factually have but a poor fund of knowledge. The Lord says clearly that He Himself, Arjuna and all the kings who are assembled on the battlefield are eternally individual beings and that the Lord is eternally the maintainer of the individual living entities both in their conditioned and in their liberated situations. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the supreme individual person, and Arjuna, the Lord’s eternal associate, and all the kings assembled there are individual eternal persons. It is not that they did not exist as individuals in the past, and it is not that they will not remain eternal persons. Their individuality existed in the past, and their individuality will continue in the future without interruption. Therefore, there is no cause for lamentation for anyone. The Māyāvādī theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of māyā, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Kṛṣṇa, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Kṛṣṇa clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upaniṣads, will continue eternally. This statement of Kṛṣṇa’s is authoritative because Kṛṣṇa cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then Kṛṣṇa would not have stressed it so much – even for the future. The Māyāvādī may argue that the individuality spoken of by Kṛṣṇa is not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Kṛṣṇa’s individuality? Kṛṣṇa affirms His individuality in the past and confirms His individuality in the future also. He has confirmed His individuality in many ways, and impersonal Brahman has been declared to be subordinate to Him. Kṛṣṇa has maintained spiritual individuality all along; if He is accepted as an ordinary conditioned soul in individual consciousness, then His Bhagavad-gītā has no value as authoritative scripture. A common man with all the four defects of human frailty is unable to teach that which is worth hearing. The Gītā is above such literature. No mundane book compares with the Bhagavad-gītā. When one accepts Kṛṣṇa as an ordinary man, the Gītā loses all importance. The Māyāvādī argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Kṛṣṇa to place a conventional proposition on the body again? Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great ācāryas like Śrī Rāmānuja and others. It is clearly mentioned in many places in the Gītā that this spiritual individuality is understood by those who are devotees of the Lord. Those who are envious of Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no bona fide access to the great literature. The nondevotee’s approach to the teachings of the Gītā is something like that of a bee licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad-gītā can be understood only by devotees, and no one else can taste it, as it is stated in the Fourth Chapter of the book. Nor can the Gītā be touched by persons who envy the very existence of the Lord. Therefore, the Māyāvādī explanation of the Gītā is a most misleading presentation of the whole truth. Lord Caitanya has forbidden us to read commentations made by the Māyāvādīs and warns that one who takes to such an understanding of the Māyāvādī philosophy loses all power to understand the real mystery of the Gītā. If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.

— A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda
Gauḍīya Ācāryas
Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura Gauḍīya
Translation
12. It is not that I, you and these kings did not exist, and nor in the future will we not exist.
Commentary

“Now, O friend, I will ask you a question. When you see the death of a person you love, you lament. But is the object of affection while the person is in this world the soul or the body? Śukadeva says that the soul is most dear in all living beings: sarveṣām eva bhūtānāṁ nṛpa svātmaiva vallabhaḥ. (SB 10.14.50) If the soul is the object of affection, the soul should not be the object of lamentation, because it cannot suffer death, since both types of ātmā, the jīva and īśvara are eternal.” With this intention, He speaks this verse. It is not that I, the Paramātmā, have ever not been in existence, but rather I have always existed. You also, a jīvātmā, have also always existed. These kings also, jīvātmās, have always existed. Here the Lord shows that previous non-existence (prāg-abhāva) is absent for all souls. And it is not that I, you, and all these kings (sarve vayam) will not exist in the future. Rather we will certainly exist. Here he shows that the soul is devoid of destruction (dhvaṁsa abhāva). By this he concludes that since the Paramātmā and the jīva are both eternal, there is no cause for lamentation. The śruti says: nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān He is the chief eternal among all eternals. He is the chief conscious entity among all conscious entities, the one fulfills the needs of all others. Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.13

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Gauḍīya
Translation
12. Never have I not existed nor, you nor these kings. Nor in the future will we ever not exist.
Commentary

Thus, having establishing Arjuna’s lack of wisdom through his unsuitable lamentation, the Lord of all beings, Bhagavān, next speaks about the fundamental difference between the jīvas and Himself to Arjuna, who was desirous of knowing the truth, and was thus standing with folded hands. That difference is established in the śruti: nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān He is the eternal among all eternal entities, and the chief conscious being among all conscious beings. Among the many living entities, He is the chief, who fulfills their desires. Śvetāsvatara Upaniṣad 6.13 O Arjuna, it is not that I, the Lord of all, Bhagavān, have not existed at some time (jātu) previously, at some beginning point. I have certainly existed. It is not that you also have not existed. You existed for certain. It is not that these kings did not exist. They existed for certain. And it is not that in the future, at some end point in time, all of us—I, you and all these kings—will not exist. For certain we will exist. Because the jīva, like the Lord of all, exists in all three phases of time, it is not proper to lament concerning the jīva. This is not just a conventional, illusory difference (vyavahārka bheda) between the jīva and the Lord, caused by ignorance (but which will disappear with the dawn of knowledge), because bhagavān, being omniscient, has no connection with ignorance. As well, even in the liberated state, the jīva’s separate designation is acknowledged in the scriptures. This is illustrated by such statements as: idaṁ jṣānam upāśritya mama sādharmyam āgatāḥ sarge’pi nopajāyante pralaye na vyathanti ca By becoming fixed in this knowledge, one can attain a transcendental nature like My own. Thus established, one is not born at the time of creation or disturbed at the time of dissolution. BG 14.2 One should also not say that the Lord, though actually fixed in non-duality, sees difference between Arjuna and Himself by invoking the theory of bādhita anuvṛtti, by which the liberated soul continues to have an appearance of dualistic vision after the illusion has been destroyed, but which does not create bondage. Even if such a theory were true, teachings could still not take place. Though one may think that a mirage in the desert is water, when that misconception is corrected, one continues with the conviction that the water is false. Though one continues to see the illusion of water in the desert after one has annulled the misconception, because one has the conviction that what he perceives false water, he does not try to take up that water for drinking or other uses. The Lord, continuing a sense of duality which has actually annulled by His realization of non-duality, and thus seeing difference between Arjuna and Himself (according to the theory of bādhita anuvṛtti), the Lord would not engage in teaching Arjuna whatsoever, because he actually would discern the truth of the matter— that duality of Himself and Arjuna was an illusion. [Note: The impersonalists advocate the theory of bādhita anuvrtti to explain the existence of the jīvana mukta, who is beyond duality, but can teach others, when teaching implies duality. According to this theory the liberated soul somehow maintains a type of conditional vision even after realizing non-duality as long as he maintains his body. This conditional vision caused by residual avidya does not interfere with his realization. However, even if he does have that temporary dualistic vision after non-dualistic realization, he would not act as if situated in dualism by teaching, since he would know that the dualism is false. This argument is given by Rāmanuja in his commentary on this verse.] “Through the teachings of scripture, we find that the intended subject must be non-difference of soul and the Lord since the object of scripture is to speak of something unknown (non-duality) and of beneficial result, and not to speak of what is already known (conventional duality) and useless. This is to be explained as the import of śrutis statements such as adbhyo vā eṣa prātar udety apaḥ sāyaṁ praviśati:: in the morning the sun rises from the water and in the evening merges in the water. (Aitreya Brāhmaṇa 4.20.13)” [Note: The statement is common knowledge and thus useless. It is approximate knowledge at best. However we have to search for deeper significance concerning something unknown to us, the merging of self into God, in the scriptures. This verse is also quoted in Vedānta Syamantaka 3.24.] This is foolish, for śruti declares difference alone: pṛthag ātmānaṁ preritāraṁ ca matvā juṣṭas tatas tenāmṛtatvam eti Having understood that the soul and the inciter of action (the Lord) are different, thus gaining the love of the Lord, one attains freedom from death. Śvetāsvatara Upaniṣad 1.6 This statement shows the value of knowledge of difference between the soul and the Lord, because of the mention of attaining a beneficial result for the individual ātmā—his attainment of freedom from death (amṛtatvam eti). The descriptions of God and jīva are also something unknown to common men, because they correlate distinctive, contrary qualities to God and jīva. The mutually contrary qualities of the Lord and the jīva—greatness and smallness, lordship and servitude— can be understood only through scripture. Also, the result of knowledge of non-difference is no result at all, because of non-acceptance of results. [Note: The opponent raised the argument that scriptures should speak of something unknown, which gives beneficial results. But since non-duality means not being conscious of anything, there can be no result at all.] Absolute non-duality, which the monists say is unknown, is actually unknowable, because it does not actually exist, like horns on a rabbit, and therefore is useless. [Note: The one unchanging Brahman without form or qualities is pure consciousness, but that consciousness cannot know itself or anything, since there is nothing to know or do, and any knowledge will create change. Therefore it is consciousness in name only, but is no better than dull matter.] In this way real difference between the soul and the Lord has been established.

Bhūrijana Dāsa Gauḍīya
Commentary

Here in the beginning of Krsna's instructions that we are not our body but spiritual souls, Krsna is also defeating Mayavada philosophy. Because He is identifying right from the very beginning that He is an individual, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and Arjuna and each one of the Kings are also individuals. Krsna is very clearly stressing His individuality and the living entities' individuality in the past, present, and future. And He is not stressing His individuality based on the body because after all He is His body, He doesn't have a material body. And if the impersonalists say that Krsna has a material body so why they read and discuss Bhagavad‑gita?

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

We are all eternal individuals – Therefore there is no cause of lamentation for change of bodies

LINK BETWEEN TEXTS 2.12 & 2.13: This basic understanding of the difference between the individual

soul and his temporary body is further stressed in the next verse

Focus of Learning

(a) Supporting verse for “Eternal individuality”: Ref. Katha Upanisad & Svetasvatara Upanisad “Nityo

Nityanam...”)

Supreme Personality of Godhead is the maintainer of innumerable living entities
How is He maintaining?
In terms of different situations according to ‘individual work’ and ‘reaction of work’
Also by plenary portion, He is alive in the heart of all living entities
Visions of Saintly Persons who achieve ‘perfect and eternal peace’ – They can see same Supreme Lord within and without

(b) Refutation of Mayavadi Theory – The following points are refuted:

What is their theory?
Individual soul is separated or broken from original consciousness by covering of Maya or illusion

▪ Refutation – But we know that the soul is unbreakable (Ref. Bg. 2.13 & 2.23)

After liberation the soul merges or dissolves homogenously into impersonal Brahman and lose individual existence

▪ Refutation – But we know that the soul is insoluble and never dissolves (Ref.

Bg. 2.24)

Also refutes the following points
Mayavadi may argue: “Individuality exists only in conditioned state”

▪ Refutation – Krishna clearly states individuality of the Lord and the living

entities for future also (importance of Krishna’s statement as authoritative –

because Krishna cannot be subject to illusion)

Mayavadi may argue: “ Individuality is material and not ‘spiritual’

▪ Refutation – Then how can one distinguish Krishna’s individuality. Krishna

confirms His individuality in the past and also in the future. If Krishna is an

ordinary conditioned soul, born of four defects, then Bhagavad-gita loses all

value

Mayavadi argues: “Plurality mentioned in this verse refers to body”

▪ Refutation – But Bodily conception condemned in the previous verse

Why would Lord place a conventional proposition on the body again

If “Individuality refers to the Empirical universe”

▪ Refutation: Then there is no need of teaching by the Lord

(c) Only a ‘devotee’ can understand the ‘Bhagavad-gita’ and the concept of ‘Spiritual

Individuality’(Ref. Bg. Chapter 4)

Who cannot understand – Those who are envious of the Lord

(d) Failure of Mayavada

Analogy to explain ‘Failure of Mayavadis/Non-Devotees’ – Bees licking the bottle of honey
Ref. Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu on Mayavada
He forbids us to read the most misleading Mayavada presentations on Bhagavad-gita
Classical Ācāryas
Śrī Śaṅkarācārya Classical
Translation
2.12 Why are they not to be grieved for? Because they are eternal. How? Na tu eva, but certainly it is not (a fact); that jatu, at any time; aham, I ; na asam, did not exist; on the contrary, I did exist. The idea is that when the bodies were born or died in the past, I existed eternally. [Here Ast. adds ghatadisu viyadiva, like Space in pot etc.-Tr.] Similarly, na tvam, nor is it that you did not exist; but you surely existed. Ca, and so also; na ime, nor is it that these ; jana-adhipah, rulers of men, did not exist. On the other hand, they did exist. And similarly, na eva, it is surely not that; vayam, we; sarve, all; na bhavisyamah, shall cease to exist; atah param, after this, even after the destruction of this body. On the contrary, we shall exist. The meaning is that even in all the three times (past, present and future) we are eternal in our nature as the Self. The plural number (in we) is used following the diversity of the bodies, but not in the sense of the multiplicity of the Self.
Śrī Rāmānujācārya Classical
Translation
2.12 Indeed, I, the Lord of all, who is eternal, was never non-existent, but existed always. It is not that these selves like you, who are subject to My Lordship, did not exist; you have always existed. It is not that 'all of us', I and you, shall cease to be 'in the future', i.e., beyond the present time; we shall always exist. Even as no doubt can be entertainted that I, the Supreme Self and Lord of all, am eternal, likewise, you (Arjuna and all others) who are embodied selves, also should be considered eternal. The foregoing implies that the difference between the Lord, the sovereign over all, and the individual selves, as also the differences among the individual selves themselves, are real. This has been declared by the Lord Himself. For, different terms like 'I', 'you', 'these', 'all' and 'we' have been used by the Lord while explaining the truth of eternality in order to remove the misunderstanding of Arjuna who is deluded by ignorance. [Now follows a refutation of the Upadhi theory of Bhaskara and the Ignorance theory of the Advaitins which deny any ultimate difference between the Lord and the Jivas.] If we examine (Bhaskara's) theory of Upadhis (adjuncts), which states that the apparent differences among Jivas are due to adjuncts, it will have to be admitted that mention about differences is out of place when explaining the ultimate truth, because the theory holds that there are no such differences in reality. But that the differences mentioned by the Lord are natural, is taught by the Sruti also: 'Eternal among eternals, sentient among sentients, the one, who fulfils the desires of the many' (Sve. U. VI. 13, Ka. U. V. 13). The meaning of the text is: Among the eternal sentient beings who are countless, He, who is the Supreme Spirit, fulfils the desires of all.' As regards the theory of the Advaitins that the perception of difference is brought about by ignorance only and is not really real, the Supreme Being - whose vision must be true and who, therefore must have an immediate cognition of the differencelss and immutable and eternal consciousness as constituting the nature of the Atman in all authenticity, and who must thery be always free from all ignorance and its effects - cannot possibly perceive the so-called difference arising from ignornace. It is, therefore, unimaginable that He engages himself in activities such as teaching, which can proceed only from such a perception of differences arising from ignorance. The argument that the Supreme Being, though possessed of the understanding of nom-duality, can still have the awareness of such difference persisting even after sublation, just as a piece of cloth may have been burnt up and yet continues to have the appearance of cloth, and that such a continuance of the subltated does not cause bondage - such an argument is invalid in the light of another analogy of a similar kind, namely, the perception of the mirage, which, when understood to be what it is, does not make one endeavour to fetch water therefrom. In the same way even if the impression of difference negated by the non-dualistic illumination persists, it cannot impel one to activities such as teaching; for the object to whom the instruction is to be imparted is discovered to be unreal. The idea is that just as the discovery of the non-existence of water in a mirage stops all effort to get water from it, so also when all duality is sublated by illumination, no activity like teaching disciples etc., can take place. Nor can the Lord be conceived as having been previously ignorant and as attaining knowledge of unity through the scirptures, and as still being subject to the continuation of the stultified experiences. Such a position would stand in contradiction to the Sruti and the Smrti: 'He, who is all-comprehender' (Mun. U., 1. 1. 9); all knower and supreme and natural power of varied types are spoken of in Srutis, such as knowledge, strength and action' (Sve. U. 6. 8); 'I know, Arjuna, all beings of the past, present and future but no one knows Me,' etc. (Gita 7. 26). And again, if the perception of difference and distinction are said to persist even after the unitary Self has been decisively understood, the estion will arise - to whom will the Lord and the succession of teachers of the tradition impart the knowledge in accordance with their understanding? The estion needs an answer. The idea is that knowledge of non-duality and perception of differences cannot co-exist. If it be replied by Advaitins holding the Bimba-Pratibimba (the original and reflections) theory that teachers give instructions to their own reflections in the form of disciples such as Arjuna, it would amount to an absurdity. For, no one who is not out of his senses would undertake to give any instruction to his own reflections in mediums such as a precious stone, the blade of a sword or a mirror, knowing, as he does, that they are non-different from himself. The theory of the persistence of the sublated is thus impossible to maintain, as the knowledge of the unitary self destroys the beginningless ignorance in which differences falling outside the self are supposed to be rooted. 'The persistence of the sublated' does occur in cases such as the vision of the two moons, where the cause of the vision is the result of some real defect in eyesight, nor removable by the right understanding of the singleness of the moon. Even though the perception of the two moons may continue, the sublated cognition is rendered inconseential on the strength of strong contrary evidence. For, it will not lead to any activity appropriate for a real experience. But in the present context (i.e. the Advaitic), the conception of difference, whose object and cause are admittedly unreal, is cancelled by the knowledge of reality. So the 'persistence of the sublated' can in no way happen. Thus, if the Supreme Lord and the present succession of preceptors have attained the understanding of (Non-dual) reality, their perception of difference and work such as teaching proceeding from that perception, are impossible. If, on the other hand, the perception of difference persists because of the continuance of ignorance and its cause, then these teachers are themselves ignorant of the truth, and they will be incapable of teaching the truth. Further, as the preceptor has attained the knowledge of the unitary self and thery the ignorance concerning Brahman and all the effects of such ignorance are thus annihilated, there is no purpose in instructing the disciple. It it is held that the preceptor and his knowledge are just in the imagination of the disciple, the disciple and his knowledge are similarly the product of the imagination of the preceptor, and as such can not put an end to the ignorance in estion. If it is maintained that the disciple's knowledge destroys ignorance etc., because it contradicts the antecedent state of non-enlightenment, the same can be asserted of the preceptor's knowledge. The futility of such teachings is obvious. Enough of these unsound doctrines which have all been refuted.
Śrī Abhinavagupta Classical
Translation
2.12 See Comment under 2.13
Swami Sivananda Classical
Translation
2.12 Nor at any time indeed was I not, nor thou, nor these rulers of men, nor verily shall we ever cease to be hereafter.
Commentary

2.12 न not? तु indeed? एव also? अहम् I? जातु at any time? न not? आसम् was? न not? त्वम् thou? न not? इमे these? जनाधिपाः rulers of men? न not? च and? एव also? न not? भविष्यामः shall be? सर्वे all? वयम् we? अतः from this time? परम् after.Commentary -- Lord Krishna speaks here of the immortality of the Soul or the imperishable nature of the Self (Atman). The Soul exists in the three periods of time (past? present and future). Man continues to exist even after the death of the physical body. There is life beyond.

Swami Gambhīrānanda Classical
Translation
2.12 But certainly (it is) not (a fact) that I did not exist at any time; nor you, nor these rulers of men. And surely it is not that we all shall cease to exist after this.
Shri Purohit Swami Classical
Translation
2.12 There was never a time when I was not, nor thou, nor these princes were not; there will never be a time when we shall cease to be.
Related values & verses
Related values
Tyaga (Renunciation / Letting Go)Daksya (Resourcefulness / Skill)Abhaya (Fearlessness)Vairagya (Detachment / Dispassion)
Related verses
BG 2.11 BG 2.20 BG 15.7 SB 3.7.19 SB 10.87.30 SB 11.7.19 CC Ādi 2.96 CC Madhya 20.108 CC Madhya 20.118 Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.5Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13
Study Q&A referencing this verse
Related lectures
Personal Guidance
The soul existed before this body, exists now, and will exist after — every soul, including the Lord, is eternal.
Practical Applications
  • Begin each day reminding yourself that you are a soul, not the body waking up.
  • When you fear loss, recall that the souls you love are eternal even when bodies are not.
  • Speak to children and elders with awareness of their eternal nature.
Reflection Questions
  • When do I most forget my own eternal nature?
  • How would my relationships shift if I held everyone's eternity in mind?
Analogy

Flames on countless lamps — each lamp distinct, each flame eternal in the substrate of fire. The lamps come and go; the principle of fire is not born and does not die. So with the Lord and the jīvas: each is eternally individual, never abolished in the past or future.

📝 My note

Source: vedabase.io

← Read full Chapter 2