back to questions
Bhagavad-Gītā with Śaṅkara's bhāṣya · 2.12
na tv evāhaṃ jātu nāsaṃ na tvaṃ neme janādhipāḥ | na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ sarve vayam ataḥ param
Translation. But never was there a time when I did not exist—nor you, nor these rulers of men;
nor indeed, after this [body’s destruction], shall all of us cease to exist.
Grammar check: 21 words pass / 0 flagged / 0 beyond the checkerPāṇini-verified
Every word's claimed grammar is re-derived with vidyut-prakriya, software implementing Pāṇini's rules. Flags are shown, never hidden; some are the text taking epic or Vedic liberties the classical rules do not generate.
Word by word
| surface | lemma | grammar |
|---|
| na | na | pass |
| tu | tu | pass |
| eva | eva | pass |
| aham | mad | pass |
| jātu | jātu | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| āsam | as | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| tvam | tvad | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| ime | idam | pass |
| janādhipāḥ | janādhipa | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| ca | ca | pass |
| eva | eva | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| bhaviṣyāmaḥ | bhū | pass |
| sarve | sarva | pass |
| vayam | mad | pass |
| ataḥ | atas | pass |
| param | param | pass |
How the commentary settled it
Where the verse alone is ambiguous, the reading follows Śaṅkara's commentary; the deciding lines are quoted below each decision.
jātu is temporal and generalizing: under the negation it yields “never” or “at no time,” rather than “perhaps” or a reference to birth.→ “Never was there a time” reproduces Śaṅkara’s explicit gloss jātu = kadācit.
gita [1]na tv eva jātu kadācid ahaṃ nāsam kintv āsam eva |
But it was never the case at any time that I did not exist; rather, I certainly existed.
The repeated negatives deny nonexistence and therefore affirm continued existence; eva reinforces that affirmation.→ The verse says that the speakers and addressees were not nonexistent and will not become nonexistent.
gita [1]na tv eva jātu kadācid ahaṃ nāsam kintv āsam eva |
It was never the case that I did not exist; rather, I certainly existed.
gita [3]tathā na tvaṃ nāsīḥ, kintv āsīr eva |
Likewise, it is not that you did not exist; rather, you certainly existed.
gita [4]tathā neme janādhipā āsan kintv āsann eva |
Likewise, it is not that these rulers of men did not exist; rather, they certainly existed.
gita [5]tathā na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ, kintu bhaviṣyāma eva, sarve vayam ato 'smād deha-vināśāt param uttara-kāle 'pi |
Likewise, it is not that we shall not exist; rather, all of us shall certainly exist even at the later time after this destruction of the body.
tvam and ime janādhipāḥ are nominative subjects in elliptical clauses; the understood predicates are respectively āsīḥ and āsan.→ “Nor you, nor these rulers of men [failed to exist]”; Śaṅkara explicitly supplies the finite verbs.
gita [3]tathā na tvaṃ nāsīḥ, kintv āsīr eva |
Likewise, it is not that you did not exist; rather, you certainly existed.
gita [4]tathā neme janādhipā āsan kintv āsann eva |
Likewise, it is not that these rulers of men did not exist; rather, they certainly existed.
The first- and second-person expressions refer ultimately to the enduring Self (ātman) through changes of bodies, not to uninterrupted persistence of the same physical bodies.→ The translation retains the personal pronouns but understands their enduring referent as the Self.
gita [2]atīteṣu dehotpatti-vināśeṣu ghaṭādiṣu viyad iva nitya eva aham āsam ity abhiprāyaḥ |
The intention is: amid past productions and destructions of bodies, I always existed, like space amid pots and the like.
gita [6]triṣv api kāleṣu nityā ātma-svarūpeṇa ity arthaḥ |
The meaning is that in all three times they are eternal in the nature of the Self.
ataḥ param means after this body’s destruction, not merely “from the present moment onward.”→ “After this [body’s destruction]” follows Śaṅkara’s explicit resolution of the deictic ataḥ and temporal param.
gita [5]tathā na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ, kintu bhaviṣyāma eva, sarve vayam ato 'smād deha-vināśāt param uttara-kāle 'pi |
Likewise, it is not that we shall not exist; rather, all of us shall certainly exist even at the later time after this destruction of the body.
The grammatical plural in sarve vayam reflects the continuing differentiation of bodies; it must not be made into an assertion that the Self is intrinsically divided into many selves.→ Translate the grammatical plural as “all of us,” while withholding any claim of intrinsic plurality in the Self.
gita [7]dehābhedānuvṛttyā bahu-vacanam, nātma-bhedābhiprāyeṇa ||bhgs_2.12||
The plural is due to the continuing differentiation of bodies, not because differentiation of the Self is intended.
janādhipa is analyzed as a genitive tatpuruṣa, janānām adhipaḥ, “ruler of men/people.”
→ Genitive tatpuruṣa; this agrees with the lexical sense “ruler” recorded at MW s.v. janādhipa, 410,3.
tu is adversative and marks a correction from the apparent proposition of nonexistence to emphatic existence.→ “But,” supported by Śaṅkara’s repeated corrective kintu.
gita [1]na tv eva jātu kadācid ahaṃ nāsam kintv āsam eva |
But it was never the case that I did not exist; rather, I certainly existed.
Śaṅkara's commentary on this unit
1na tv eva jātu kadācid ahaṃ nāsam kintv āsam eva |
2atīteṣu dehotpatti-vināśeṣu ghaṭādiṣu viyad iva nitya eva aham āsam ity abhiprāyaḥ |
3tathā na tvaṃ nāsīḥ, kintv āsīr eva |
4tathā neme janādhipā āsan kintv āsann eva |
5tathā na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ, kintu bhaviṣyāma eva, sarve vayam ato 'smād deha-vināśāt param uttara-kāle 'pi |
6triṣv api kāleṣu nityā ātma-svarūpeṇa ity arthaḥ |
7dehābhedānuvṛttyā bahu-vacanam, nātma-bhedābhiprāyeṇa ||bhgs_2.12||
8tatra katham iva nitya ātmeti dṛṣṭāntam āha -