BG 02.28 avyaktadini bhutani... cited

Expressions researched:
"All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning" |"avyakta-nidhanany eva" |"avyaktadini bhutani" |"manifest in their interim state" |"tatra ka paridevana" |"unmanifest again when annihilated" |"vyakta-madhyani bharata" |"what need is there for lamentation"

Notes from the compiler: VedaBase query: "2.28" or "All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning" or "avyakta-nidhanany eva" or "avyaktadini bhutani" or "manifest in their interim state" or "tatra ka paridevana" or "unmanifest again when annihilated" or "vyakta-madhyani bharata" or "what need is there for lamentation"

BG Chapters 1 - 6

BG 2.28, Translation and Purport:

All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?

Accepting that there are two classes of philosophers, one believing in the existence of the soul and the other not believing in the existence of the soul, there is no cause for lamentation in either case. Nonbelievers in the existence of the soul are called atheists by followers of Vedic wisdom. Yet even if, for argument's sake, we accept this atheistic theory, there is still no cause for lamentation. Apart from the separate existence of the soul, the material elements remain unmanifested before creation. From this subtle state of nonmanifestation comes manifestation, just as from ether, air is generated; from air, fire is generated; from fire, water is generated; and from water, earth becomes manifested. From the earth, many varieties of manifestations take place. Take, for example, a big skyscraper manifested from the earth. When it is dismantled, the manifestation becomes again unmanifested and remains as atoms in the ultimate stage. The law of conservation of energy remains, but in course of time things are manifested and unmanifested—that is the difference. Then what cause is there for lamentation either in the stage of manifestation or in unmanifestation? Somehow or other, even in the unmanifested stage, things are not lost. Both at the beginning and at the end, all elements remain unmanifested, and only in the middle are they manifested, and this does not make any real material difference.

And if we accept the Vedic conclusion as stated in the Bhagavad-gītā that these material bodies are perishable in due course of time (antavanta ime dehāḥ) but that the soul is eternal (nityasyoktāḥ śarīriṇaḥ), then we must remember always that the body is like a dress; therefore why lament the changing of a dress? The material body has no factual existence in relation to the eternal soul. It is something like a dream. In a dream we may think of flying in the sky, or sitting on a chariot as a king, but when we wake up we can see that we are neither in the sky nor seated on the chariot. The Vedic wisdom encourages self-realization on the basis of the nonexistence of the material body. Therefore, in either case, whether one believes in the existence of the soul or one does not believe in the existence of the soul, there is no cause for lamentation for loss of the body.

SB Canto 7

SB 7.2.37, Translation and Purport:

Śrī Yamarāja said: Alas, how amazing it is! These persons, who are older than me, have full experience that hundreds and thousands of living entities have taken birth and died. Thus they should understand that they also are apt to die, yet still they are bewildered. The conditioned soul comes from an unknown place and returns after death to that same unknown place. There is no exception to this rule, which is conducted by material nature. Knowing this, why do they uselessly lament?

The Lord says in Bhagavad-gītā (2.28):

avyaktādīni bhūtāni

vyakta-madhyāni bhārata

avyakta-nidhanāny eva

tatra kā paridevanā

"All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when they are annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?"

Accepting that there are two classes of philosophers, one believing in the existence of the soul and the other not believing in its existence, there is no cause for lamentation in either case. Nonbelievers in the existence of the soul are called atheists by followers of Vedic wisdom. Yet even if for argument's sake we accept the atheistic theory, there is still no cause for lamentation. Apart from the separate existence of the soul, the material elements remain unmanifested before creation.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG 2.26 -- Hyderabad, November 30, 1972:

The Battle of Kurukṣetra, it was finished within eighteen days. There is no use of prolonging the war unnecessarily. If the chief man is killed, then war is finished. Therefore Kṛṣṇa is advising Arjuna that "Suppose your grandfather on the other side dies, so where is the cause of lamentation? He's old man. He will get another, new body. So you should be rather happy that your old grandfather is going to have a new body." Jātasya hi dhruvo mṛtyuḥ. "And everyone will die. You die today or tomorrow, or, say, fifty years after. You have to die. It is as sure as death. So why should you deviate from your duty? You are a kṣatriya. Your duty is to fight. Why you are afraid of being dead, or killing others? This is your duty."

avyaktādīni bhūtāni

vyakta-madhyāni bhārata

avyakta-nidhanāny eva

tatra kā paridevanā

So the body was not existing before. And it will not exist after death. So in the via media, if the manifestation of body is there, so why it should be the object of lamentation? In this way, Kṛṣṇa is trying to convince Arjuna that he should act as kṣatriya and perform his duty. A kṣatriya is profited, either dead or alive. That will be explained. Because in a, in a fighting, I mean to say, real religious fighting, on principle, it is, a kṣatriya is not responsible for killing. Just like in sacrificial ceremony, if the animal is killed, the brāhmaṇa is not responsible for killing an animal. So because it is duty, it is ordained by the śāstras, therefore they are not ordinary killing. Avyakta-nidhanāny eva tatra kā pari... "It was nonmanifested before, and it will become nonmanifested again. So why should you lament for the via media?"

Lecture on BG 2.27-38 -- Los Angeles, December 11, 1968:

Devotee: "According to logicians, one has to take birth according to one's activities of life. After finishing one term of activities, one has to die to take birth for the next. In this way the cycle of birth and death is revolving, one after the other, without liberation. This cycle of birth and death does not, however, support unnecessary murder, slaughter and war unnecessarily. But at the same time, violence and war are inevitable factors in human society for keeping law and order. The Battle of Kurukṣetra, being the will of the Supreme, was an inevitable event, and to fight for the right cause is the duty of a kṣatriya. Why should he be afraid of or aggrieved at the death of his relatives since he was discharging his proper duty? He did not deserve to break the law, thereby becoming subjected to the reactions of sinful acts, of which he was so afraid. By ceasing from the discharge of his proper duty, he would not be able to stop the death of his relatives, and he would be degraded on account of his selection of the wrong path of action." 28: "All created beings are unmanifest in their beginnings, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when they are annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation (BG 2.28)?" 29.

Prabhupāda: This another theory, that voidism, that before our, this manifested life, there was void, and after this manifestation is over, still there will be void. Because according to voidism, everything is manifested originally void. So Kṛṣṇa puts forward this argument that before this manifested form of life there was void, and after this manifested life, there will be void, according to the void philosophy. Then where is the cause of lamentation? There is no cause of lamentation. It was void and it is going to be void. So where is the cause of lamentation? But actually that is... Originally, it was not void. That is a Bhagavad-gītā and Vaiṣṇava theory. Just like Kṛṣṇa said that there was "No such time when we did not exist." That means not there was... There was no void. There was life. And in future also, there will be life. But accepting the theory of voidism, this manifested body is combination of matter. Originally, void means the matters, elementary matters, were not combined. Just like here is an open land. Now, if you combine some bricks and stones and wood, it will appear a big skyscraper building. And if you dismantle, then again it becomes a vacant land. Similarly, in the beginning it was vacant land, and after finishing this body it will be vacant land. So where is the cause of lamentation? For argument's sake, Kṛṣṇa is putting this reason.

Lecture on BG 2.28 -- London, August 30, 1973:

Devotee:

avyaktādīni bhūtāni

vyakta-madhyāni bhārata

avyakta-nidhanāny eva

tatra kā paridevanā

(BG 2.28)

"All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when they are annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?"

Prabhupāda: ...believing in the existence of soul. So soul is eternal. So there is nothing, no cause for lamentation, because soul will remain. Even the body is destroyed, there is no cause for lamentation. And those who do not believe that "There is no soul; everything was void in the beginning,..." So in the beginning there was void and in the middle it is manifested. Then again it is void. So void to void, where there is lamentation? This is the argument Kṛṣṇa is giving. Both ways you cannot lament. Then?

Lecture on BG 2.30 -- London, August 31, 1973:

Devotee:

dehī nityam avadhyo 'yaṁ

dehe sarvasya bhārata

tasmāt sarvāṇi bhūtāni

na tvaṁ śocitum arhasi

(BG 2.28)

"O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body is eternal and can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any creature."

Prabhupāda: Dehī nityam avadhyo 'yaṁ dehe sarvasya bhārata. Dehe, dehe means body, within the body. This topic began, dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā (BG 2.13). Deha, dehī. Dehī means one who possesses the body. Just like guṇī. Āsthate in prata.(?) The grammatical. Guṇa, in, deha, in, in prata.(?) Dehin śabda. So the nominative case of dehin śabda is dehī. Dehī nityam, eternal. In so many ways, Kṛṣṇa has explained. Nityam, eternal. Indestructible, immutable. It does not take birth, it does not die, it is always, constantly the same. Na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20).