FolioCorpusBhagavad-gītā

Bhagavad-gītā 2.26

అథ చైనం నిత్యజాతం నిత్యం వా మన్యసే మృతమ్ । తథాపి త్వం మహాబాహో నైనం శోచితుమర్హసి ॥ ౨౬ ॥
atha cainaṁ nitya-jātaṁ
[atha chainam nitya-jaatam]
nityaṁ vā manyase mṛtam
[nityam vaa manyase mritam]
tathāpi tvaṁ mahā-bāho
[tathaapi tvam mahaa-baaho]
nainaṁ śocitum arhasi
[nainam shochitum arhasi]
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 .
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
atha cainaṁ nitya-jātaṁ
atha
if, however
ca
also
enam
this soul
nitya - jātam
always born
nityaṁ vā manyase mṛtam
nityam
forever
vā
either
manyase
you so think
mṛtam
dead
tathāpi tvaṁ mahā-bāho
tathā api
still
tvam
you
mahā - bāho
O mighty-armed one
nainaṁ śocitum arhasi
na
never
enam
about the soul
śocitum
to lament
arhasi
deserve .
Important Words
  • atha — but if, however
    The hypothetical particle. Kṛṣṇa says: *even if* you reject the eternal soul, the conclusion stands. The verse is a concession-argument — it grants the opponent's premise and still defeats his conclusion.
  • nitya - jātam — always being born
    Compound — *constantly being born*. The materialist's claim: the soul (or 'life') is endlessly produced anew. Kṛṣṇa entertains the position to show it does not rescue lamentation.
  • manyase — you think
    Second person — *if you think*. The verb belongs to opinion, not realization. Kṛṣṇa marks the position as merely mata, not jñāna. Still: even granted as mata, the lament fails.
  • mahā - bāho — mighty-armed
    Vocative. Used when Kṛṣṇa wants to remind Arjuna of his power and prepare him for a strong conclusion. The hero is being addressed before being told a hard truth.
  • śocitum — to grieve
    Infinitive of √śuc. Same root as śoka (verse 8) and aśocyān (verse 11). The chapter's controlling verb returns: even on the wrong metaphysics, this verb is unjustified.
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.
Purport

There is always a class of philosophers, almost akin to the Buddhists, who do not believe in the separate existence of the soul beyond the body. When Lord Kṛṣṇa spoke the Bhagavad-gītā, it appears that such philosophers existed, and they were known as the Lokāyatikas and Vaibhāṣikas. Such philosophers maintain that life symptoms take place at a certain mature condition of material combination. The modern material scientist and materialist philosophers also think similarly. According to them, the body is a combination of physical elements, and at a certain stage the life symptoms develop by interaction of the physical and chemical elements. The science of anthropology is based on this philosophy. Currently, many pseudo religions – now becoming fashionable in America – are also adhering to this philosophy, as are the nihilistic nondevotional Buddhist sects. Even if Arjuna did not believe in the existence of the soul – as in the Vaibhāṣika philosophy – there would still have been no cause for lamentation. No one laments the loss of a certain bulk of chemicals and stops discharging his prescribed duty. On the other hand, in modern science and scientific warfare, so many tons of chemicals are wasted for achieving victory over the enemy. According to the Vaibhāṣika philosophy, the so-called soul or ātmā vanishes along with the deterioration of the body. So, in any case, whether Arjuna accepted the Vedic conclusion that there is an atomic soul or he did not believe in the existence of the soul, he had no reason to lament. According to this theory, since there are so many living entities generating out of matter every moment, and so many of them are being vanquished every moment, there is no need to grieve for such incidents. If there were no rebirth for the soul, Arjuna had no reason to be afraid of being affected by sinful reactions due to his killing his grandfather and teacher. But at the same time, Kṛṣṇa sarcastically addressed Arjuna as mahā-bāhu, mighty-armed, because He, at least, did not accept the theory of the Vaibhāṣikas, which leaves aside the Vedic wisdom. As a kṣatriya, Arjuna belonged to the Vedic culture, and it behooved him to continue to follow its principles.

— A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda
Gauḍīya Ācāryas
Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura Gauḍīya
Translation
26. Even if you think the soul is always born and always dies, still you should not lament, O Mighty-armed one!
Commentary

“I have presented to you the conclusive truth according to the scripture. Now I will present the truth according to material vision. Please understand it.” Then He speaks this verse. If you think that the soul is always born (nitya-jātam) when the body is born, and always dies (nityaṁ mṛtam) with the death of the body, you should not lament for it. O mighty-armed Arjuna, being a brave kṣatriya, this war is your dharma. As Bhāgavatam says: kṣatriyāṇām ayaṁ dharmaḥ prajāpati-vinirmitaḥ bhrātāpi bhrātaraṁ hanyād yena ghoratamas tataḥ The code of sacred duty for warriors established by Lord Brahmā enjoins that one may have to kill even his own brother. That indeed is the most dreadful law.” SB 10.54.40

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Gauḍīya
Translation
26. Even if you think the soul is continually born and always dies, still you should not lament, O Mighty-armed one!
Commentary

Having given his own opinion on why one should not lament for the soul, the Lord now speaks of the opinion of others, in order to give other viewpoints. The student, knowing these viewpoints and consequently destroying them along with their contamination, , should remain fixed, victorious, in the Lord’s viewpoint. Endowed with a body such as human form, composed of the four elements, consciousness arises from that, just as red color arises from betel nut or the potency arises in liquor. That body made of four elements is itself the ātmā. This body is real, is subject to appearance and disappearance because of its nature of constant change, and this is known by regular perception. This is what the Lokayatas maintain. [Note: Cārvāka is their leader.] The Buddhists such as the Vaibhāsikas maintain that the ātmā is vijṣāna svarūpa, different from the body, but is still subject to destruction at every moment. In both these philosophies, there should be no lamentation for the ātmā.

The word atha in this verse indicates other opinions. Ca means api, even. If you cannot understand My words about the nature of the soul, then you can take the support of other doctrines such as that of the Lokayatas. In this philosophy which claims that the body is the ātmā, you consider that this self, the body, is continually born and continually dies. The word vā means “and.” Therefore you should not lament for this self (body), with such words as “Alas, how strange it is that we are preparing to commit greatly sinful acts. Driven by the desire to enjoy royal happiness, we are intent on killing our own kinsmen.” (BG 1.44) This is because in these two philosophies there is no fear of sin continuing into next life, since there is no next birth, and there is unavoidable creation and destruction of the selves (body), whose very nature is change. The Lord then addressed Arjuna with a mocking tone. “O mighty-armed one! You, being the best of the warriors following Vedic traditions, should not hold such wrong views.”

Bhūrijana Dāsa Gauḍīya
Translation
If, however, you think that the soul [or the symptoms of life] is always born and dies forever, you still have no reason to lament, O mighty‑armed.
Commentary

This is Krsna's "check mate" on Arjuna: "If you think that the soul is eternal then you should fight, do your duty. And if you think that there is no soul, that life is just a symptom of the body which is composed of chemicals, then there will be no killing either. So you should still do your duty and fight!" "Do you think that by not fighting you will be able to stop their death?" Krsna defeats Arjuna's arguments again and again.

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

Bauddha-vada – Even if you reject the soul, still there is no cause for lamentation; Krishna addresses

Arjuna as ‘Maha-bahu’

Classical Ācāryas
Śrī Śaṅkarācārya Classical
Translation
2.26 This (verse), 'On the other hand,' etc., is uttered assuming that the Self is transient. Atha ca, on the other hand, if ( conveys the sense of assumption ); following ordinary experience, manyase, you think; enam, this One, the Self under discussion; is nityajatam, born continually, becomes born with the birth of each of the numerous bodies; va, or; nityam, constantly; mrtam, dies, along with the death of each of these (bodies); tatha api, even then, even if the Self be of that nature; tvam, you; maha-baho, O mighty-armed one; na arhasi, ought not; socitum, to grieve; evam, thus, since that which is subject to birth will die, and that which is subject to death will be born; these two are inevitable.
Śrī Rāmānujācārya Classical
Translation
2.26 Besides, if you consider this self as identical with the body, which is constantly born and constantly dies - which is nothing other than these characteristics of the body mentioned above -, even then it does not become you to feel grief; because, birth and death are inevitable for the body, whose nature is modification.
Śrī Abhinavagupta Classical
Translation
2.26 Atha va etc. On the other hand if you deam 'This' to be the body and to be born constantly,-because its stream does not stop-even then, there is no necessity to lament. Or, if, following the [Vainasika Buddhists' ?] doctrine of continuous decay of things, you deem This to be constantly dying, even then where is the need for lamenting ? If you, in the same manner, deem the Self to be constantly born or to be constantly dying on account of Its contacts and separations with bodies, even then it is unwarranted, on every account, on the part of the men of rational thinking, to lament. Otherwise this [division of] permanence and impermanence does not stand reasoning. For-
Swami Sivananda Classical
Translation
2.26 But even if thou thinkest of It as being constantly born and constantly dying, even then, O mighty-armed, thou shouldst not grieve.
Commentary

2.26 अथ now? च and? एनम् this (Self)? नित्यजातम् constantly born? नित्यम् constantly? वा or? मन्यसे thinkest? मृतम् dead? तथापि even then? त्वम् thou? महाबाहो mightyarmed? न not? एवम् thus? शोचितुम् to grieve? अर्हसि (thou) oughtest.Commentary Lord Krishna here? for the sake of argument? takes up the popular supposition. Granting that the Self is again and again born whenever a body comes into being? and again and again dies whenever the body dies? O mightyarmed (O Arjuna of great valour and strength)? thou shouldst not grieve thus? because birth is inevitable to want is dead and death is inevitable to what is born. This is the inexorable or unrelenting Law of Nature.

Swami Gambhīrānanda Classical
Translation
2.26 On the other hand, if you think this One is born continually or dies constantly, even then, O mighty-armed one, you ought not to grieve thus.
Shri Purohit Swami Classical
Translation
2.26 Even if thou thinkest of It as constantly being born, constantly dying, even then, O Mighty Man, thou still hast no cause to grieve.
Related values & verses
Related values
Tyaga (Renunciation / Letting Go)Karuna (Kindness / Compassion)Ahimsa (Non-violence / Compassion)Tapas (Austerity / Discipline)Guru Bhakti (Reverence for Teacher)Atma Nigraha (Self-control)Daksya (Resourcefulness / Skill)Maitri (Friendship / Goodwill)Abhaya (Fearlessness)
Related verses
BG 2.27 BG 2.28 BG 18.54 SB 1.13.44 SB 7.2.42 SB 11.10.20 CC Ādi 5.41 CC Madhya 20.108 CC Madhya 22.95 Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.1.20BRS 1.2.292
Concepts
Dharma
Related lectures
Personal Guidance
Even if one believed only in the body, lament would still be foolish — the body is born, will die, and rebirth follows; this is the nature of the manifest.
Practical Applications
  • Notice that even materialist philosophy gives no real grounds for endless grief.
  • Use this verse to engage with skeptical or atheist friends honestly.
  • Accept the natural cycle of the body without theatrical grief.
Reflection Questions
  • Even from a purely material view, what am I lamenting that has no rational basis?
  • How can this verse open dialogue with those who do not yet accept the soul?
Analogy

Even if a man believed the lamp was made fresh each evening and went out each dawn — even on that wrong premise, daily mourning would be senseless, because the cycle is given. Kṛṣṇa concedes hypothetically the materialist's view and shows that even on it grief is unjustified.

📝 My note

Source: vedabase.io

← Read full Chapter 2