Sit Properly

Each week I select a verse from the Bhagavad-gita and compare/contrast four different translations. These translators all subscribe to the Gaudia-Vaisnava philosophy. This examination isn’t to prove one more superior to another, but to highlight the similarities and learn from the differences in ideologies.

The four Gitas are:
-Bhagavad-gita: As It Is by Srila Prabhupada (1972 edition)
-Bhagavad-gita: It’s Feeling and Philosophy by Tripurari Swami
-Srimad Bhagavad-gita by Narayana Maharaja
-Bhagavad-gita: The Beloved Lord’s Secret Love Song by Garuda dasa (Graham Schweig)

This week, I thought I’d jump right in the middle of Krishna and Arjuna’s conversation in the Sixth Chapter, entitled Sankhya-yoga, by Srila Prabhupada and Dhyana Yoga by Narayana Maharaja. The word sankhya refers to the philosophy that differentiates between spirit and matter. Dhyana basically means “perfect contemplation.” And that’s fitting since Chapter Six is about the mind.

Arjuna has just asked Krishna what happens to someone who is following a spiritual path, but then leaves it for some reason or another. Krishna answers, basically, that he is given another chance in the next life, picking up where he left off.

Verse 40, our verse for the week, is the beginning of that answer. Here, Krishna lays the ground rules for the sincere.

The Blessed Lord said: Son of Prtha, a transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities does not meet with destruction either in this world or in the spiritual world; one who does good, My friend, is never overcome by evil.
-Srila Prabhupada

The Lord of Sri said: O son of Prtha, neither here in this world nor in the next is he vanquished. Anyone who is sincere, my dear friend, walks not the road of misfortune.
-Tripurari Swami

Sri Bhagavan said: O Partha, such an unsuccessful yogi is not lost either in this world or the next because, My dear friend, a person who is engaged in auspicious acts never attains an unfavourable destination.
-Narayana Maharaja

The Beloved Lord said:

O Partha, indeed,
    neither in this world
    nor int he next
    is the destruction of such
    a person to be found.
For no one who acts
    in virtuous ways
    ever goes to
    an unfortunate
    destiny, my dear friend.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

On the surface, there seems to be quite a bit of difference between the translations. This just goes to show the need for studying the Gita in its broader light. If you merely select a verse and meditate on just that verse, neglecting the ones before it and after it, you’re going to be a bit lost.

Since this is where Krishna starts to speak, the phrase sri bhagavan uvaca is used to denote that. Both Srila Prabhupada and Garuda dasa fully translate it, while both Narayana Maharaja and Tripurari Swami use a bit of the original Sanskrit. Basically: “Krishna said.”

For the rest of the verse, I’ll be jumping around quite a bit since both Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja have re-arranged the placement of the words a bit.

The first line, partha naiveha namutra, means “not in this world, nor in the next.” The second line and first word of the third line, vinasas tasya vidyate na, means “is not lost” or “is not destroyed.” Plainly: “is not lost in this life nor the next.”

But who is not?

While Garuda dasa’s and Tripurari Swami’s translations are pretty well word-for-word, Srila Prabhupada’s and Narayana Maharaja’s seem to be at odds.

Both often add to the verse as more of an adaptation than a straight translation. Srila Prabhupada states that “a transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities” is not…. While Narayana Maharaja’s translation is “such an unsuccessful yogi” is not…. There’s a world of difference between a unsuccessful yogi (mystic) and a transcendentalist. So what gives?

Narayana Maharaja is, of course, referring to what Arjuna asked: “What if one falls away from the path?” This is Narayana Maharaja’s “unsuccessful yogi.”

Srila Prabhupada, on the other hand, points out Narada Muni’s instructions in the First Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam (1.5.17). He sums it up with, “The Bhagavatam assures the unsuccessful transcendentalist that there need be no worries. Even though he may be subjected to the reaction of not perfectly executing prescribed duties, he is still not a loser, because auspicious Krishna consciousness is never forgotten, and one so engaged will continue to be so even if he is lowborn in his next life.”

The difference between Narayana Maharaja’s “unsuccessful yogi” and Srila Prabhupada’s “transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities”? Absolutely none.

Narayana Maharaja’s translation itself goes on to say that this unsuccessful yogi “is not lost either in this world or the next….” This hardly seems “unseccessful.”

The third line, “hi kalyana-krt kascid,” is translated by Srila Prabhupada as “one who does good.” Tripurari Swami has it as, “anyone who is sincere.” Narayana Maharaja: “a person who is engaged in auspicious acts.” And Garuda’s: “one who acts in virtuous ways.”

These all get the same general point across. One who is good, sincere, virtuous and who does auspicious acts….”

Which brings us to the closing line, durgatim tata gacchati. Here, like in the last verse, our authors translate and adapt the line in different ways.

Srila Prabhupada closes with, “is never overcome by evil.” This is simple and is the mirror of “one who does good,” showing that this is the classic knowledge that we all know. One who does good, is not overcome by evil. It really is that simple.

Narayana Maharaja translates as, “never attains an unfavourable destination.” He calls back to the second line where it mentions “the next [world].”

Garuda dasa’s verse ends with “[n]ever goes to an unfortunate destiny.”

But Tripurari Swami’s verse adds a bit of adaptation, much like his spiritual mater Srila Prabhupada is apt to do. “Anyone who is sincere, my dear friend, walks not the road of misfortune.”

Krishna calls Arjuna tata, which is translated by all as “My dear friend,” at the end of this verse. He explains in his purport, “The use of the word tata indicates great affection on the part of Krishna, who speaks here as fatherly guru to his son-like disciple.”

He goes on to explain: “Although Krishna’s words are relevant for yoga practitioners in general, this verse is intended for his devotees in particular.”

The devotee of God, simply by being a devotee of God, has gotten God’s blessing. Even if that devotee falls away from the path, God will make sure that this progress is retained. It will not be forgotten by the devotee or by God.

Each week I select a verse from the Bhagavad-gita and compare/contrast four different translations. These translators all subscribe to the Gaudia-Vaisnava philosophy. This examination isn’t to prove one more superior to another, but to highlight the similarities and learn from the differences in ideologies.

The four Gitas are:
-Bhagavad-gita: As It Is by Srila Prabhupada (1972 edition)
-Bhagavad-gita: It’s Feeling and Philosophy by Tripurari Swami
-Srimad Bhagavad-gita by Narayana Maharaja
-Bhagavad-gita: The Beloved Lord’s Secret Love Song by Garuda dasa (Graham Schweig)

This week, our verse is taken from the last chapter. It’s one of the final instructions to Arjuna from Krishna. Srila Prabhupada entitles this chapter “The Perfection of Renunciation.” However Narayana Maharaja and Tripurari Swami call it “Moksa Yoga” and “Yoga of Freedom.” In this chapter we find that surrendering to God is actual freedom. And this verse explains that through surrendering to God, we gain true freedom from religion. It’s pretty intense.

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.
-Srila Prabhupada

Forgoing all religious injunctions, take exclusive refuge in me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.
-Tripurari Swami

Completely abandoning all bodily and mental dharma, such as varna and asrama, fully surrender to Me alone. I shall liberate you from all reactions to your sins. Do no grieve.
-Narayana Maharaja

Completely relinquishing
    all forms of dharma,
    come to me
    as your only shelter.
I shall grant you
    freedom from
    all misfortune -
    do not despair!
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

This was the first verse that I was to memorize when I moved into a temple. I got the English down without too much of a struggle, but the Sanskrit was tough and it took me about a month of daily recitation for much to stick. Today, twelve or thirteen years later, I still know the first two lines. The third line is completely wiped from my Kali-yuga memory, but the last line, with the fun-to-say word “moksayisyami” and the fun-to-quote “ma sucah” is still there. Plainly, I cannot memorize stuff very well. I’m surprised that I’ve retained as much of this as I have.

The first line, sarva-darman parityajya, is translated as “abandoning (or forgoing) all dharma.” Now, to me, it’s sort of impossible to translate from a language while still using bits of that language. And while Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami accommodate this idea, Narayana Maharaja and Garuda dasa both stick to the word “dharma.”

All here agree that parityajya means to abandon. Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja both use that word specifically. Tripurari Swami uses “forgoing,” and Garuda dasa uses “relinquishing.” They all basically mean the same thing.

Also, all agree that the first word, sarva, means “all.” But with dharman, we get some difference. This isn’t surprising since dharma can mean a slew of different things. Srila Prabhupada’s seems to be the most bold here. He tells us to “Abandon all varieties of religion….” Tripurari Swami’s seems a bit more specific with “Forgoing all religious injunctions….” But in Narayana Maharaja’s and Garuda dasa’s, their use of a Sanskrit word in their translation seems odd.

Narayana Maharaja’s edition adds quite a lot to the verse: “Completely abandoning all bodily and mental dharma, such as varna and asrama….” He not only uses dharma, but also varna and asrama. In his case, that’s fairly forgivable since his audience is not the neophyte. He’s writing for folks who already have an understanding of these words. Also, in his very long purport (like in Srila Prabhupada’s and Tripurari Swami’s) he fully explains the verse.

Garuda dasa’s use of the word dharma is, to me, troubling. “Completely relinquishing all forms of dharma….” Certainly translating dharma in such a collegiate book would be controversial. His footnote for this verse simply states: “Forms of dharma: Translates the plural form of dharma.” Now, his job isn’t to explain every aspect of the Gita. He is simply a translator. His short explanation of the Gita as a whole, in the back of the book, sheds no more light onto the subject.

This verse’s second line, mam ekam saranam vraja, also shows some difference, but ultimately, they are in concert. Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja are the most closely related. Srila Prabhupada’s “just surrender unto Me” and Narayana Maharaja’s “fully surrender to Me alone” both cover the same ground. Tripurari Swami has it as, “take exclusive refuge in me.” While I don’t agree with how he has decapitalized “me,” I do appreciate “refuge.” Garuda dasa’s “come to me as your only shelter” also is very nice. The more strict translation of saranam as “surrender” could be carelessly taken the wrong way. This certainly isn’t the fault of Srila Prabhupada or Narayana Maharaja – in both of their purports this is cleared up.

Narayana Maharaja adds Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura’s translation of “take exclusive shelter in Me.” Srila Prabhupada explains, “with faith and love, one should surrender unto Him [Krishna].” This isn’t submission or coercion. This isn’t a surrender after being defeated by guilt or so-called “fear of God.” This is surrendering through love. This truly is taking “shelter,” taking “refuge.”

The third line and a bit of the fourth, aham tvam sarva-papebhyo moksayisyami, is translated by Srila Prabhupada, Tripurari Swami and Narayana Maharaja in nearly identical ways. Both Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami translate: “I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction,” though Tripurari Swami makes “reaction” plural. Narayana Maharaja puts it, “I shall liberate you from all reactions to your sins.” It’s basically the same, though he specifically mentions “liberation” and glosses moksayisyami as “shall free” rather than “deliver.”

Garuda dasa, again, seems to vague-up the translation. He has it, “I shall grant you freedom from all misfortune….” While “freedom” would be a great word to use if he also used the word “surrender” earlier in the verse, his use of the word “misfortune” is odd. Throughout the Gita, we learn that misfortune comes from reaction to our “sins.” Now, in Sanskrit, there really isn’t a word for what we in the west know as “sin.” It’s not that we believe sinful actions don’t exist, it’s just a different understanding of “sin.”

I was raised with the idea of “original sin” and have talked about that a long time ago here. Because of this upbringing, I’m no fan of the word “sin.” However, in this verse, Krishna is not attempting to use guilt or fear to get us to surrender to Him. He simply states “I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction.” The key word here is “reaction.” It’s clear that He is speaking of our karma. This would naturally include not only our “bad” karma, but also our “good.” But here He specifically uses papebhyah, glossed by all as “sinful reactions.”

Though I’m no fan of the word “sin,” I am less of a fan of the use of the word “misfortune” in its stead. Though it is not the point of the verse, it makes it clear that it is not simply “misfortune,” it’s not that some crappy accidents keep happening to us, it’s a reaction for the things we have done. God will deliver us from our own evil (to use a biblical expression) if we take shelter in Him alone.

The last phrase ma sucah, is comforting. Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami both translate it “do not fear.” Narayana Maharaja chose “do not grieve,” and Garuda dasa uses “do not despair.” These are interesting takes on it. Grieving and despair are essentially fear.

Visvanatha Cakrabarti Thakura, in his commentary (as given by Narayana Maharaja) sums this up in a really nice way:

“Ma suchah means, “Don not grieve for yourself or others. I am bound by My vow to carry the burden of freeing any person like you from all his sins and deliver him from the cycle of birth and death. If such a person fixes his mind upon Me, completely giving up all his [dharma] and remains happily situated having surrendered to Me, I am also bound to carry the burden of providing him with the means ot achieve Me. What more can I say? I am even ready to accept the burden of maintaining his material life, as I stated when I spoke ananyas cintayanto mam (Gita 9.22).

“Do not grieve by thinkng, ‘Alas! I have placed such a heavy burden on my Lord and master!’ There is absolutely no labor involved in accepting this burden for Me….”

Srila Prabhupada puts it in much simpler terms, “The particular words used here, ma suchah, ‘Don’t fear, don’t hesitate, don’t worry,’ are very significant. One may be perplexed as to how one can give up all kinds of religious forms and simply surrender unto Krishna, but such worry is useless.”

Each week I select a verse from the Bhagavad-gita and compare/contrast four different translations. These translators all subscribe to the Gaudia-Vaisnava philosophy. This examination isn’t to prove one more superior to another, but to highlight the similarities and learn from the differences in ideologies.

The four Gitas are:
-Bhagavad-gita: As It Is by Srila Prabhupada (1972 edition)
-Bhagavad-gita: It’s Feeling and Philosophy by Tripurari Swami
-Srimad Bhagavad-gita by Narayana Maharaja
-Bhagavad-gita: The Beloved Lord’s Secret Love Song by Garuda dasa (Graham Schweig)

Though I’m hardly qualified to do so, I dissect each translation, sometimes interjecting my own unsolicited commentary. More on this can be found here.

I seem to keep coming back to Chapter Four – Jnana Yoga; Transcendental Knowledge. There’s quite a bit of good here. Krishna does a lot of explaining and it’s definitely a good place to start. In the Padma Purana, Lord Vishnua glorifies the fourth chapter specifically. Must be important.

This verse, 4.7, is one of the more popular. It’s often pulled out for Sunday Feast classes on appearance days. I first heard it in 1994 or ’95 in Philly for Nrsimhadeva’s Appearance Day.

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion – at that time I descend Myself.
-Srila Prabhupada

Whenever, O descendant of Bharata, dharma is diminished and unrighteousness is on the rise, at that time I myself manifest.
-Tripurari Swami

O Bharata! Whenever there is a decline of dharma and an increase in adharma, at that time I manifest My eternally perfect form in this mundane world.
-Narayana Maharaja

Indeed, whenever there is
    a decline of dharma,
    O Bharata,
And an emerging
    of what opposed dharma -
    at that time I send forth my Self.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

From the translation of the first line, yada yada hi dharmasya, we immediately find a difference between the translations. I’ve said before that Srila Prabhupada’s Gita is more of an interpretation than a direct translation. This certainly isn’t a bad thing. A neophyte, for example, could read only the verses of all four of our translations and come away from the experience having learned more for Srila Prabhupada’s edition. He provides exposition and explanation within the verses, whereas the other translators give a pretty straight-forward translation.

Some folks will see this as a fault. Thankfully, there are alternatives for them. But for our purposes, it’s a blessing to have a variety to work with.

Srila Prabhupada translates yada yada as “whenever and wherever.” The others simply translate it as “whenever.” Even in his word-for-word, he glosses the first yada as “whenever” and the second as “wherever.” The word yada means whenever, but he is taking a liberty to further explain that it is also whenever.

The next word, hi, seems to have been left out of all of the translations. It means “assuredly” or “certainly.” Nothing like that appears in any of the verses. This is a mystery since I don’t really know Sanskrit. My best guess would be that Krishna is assuring Arjuna that what He is saying is true.

The line ends with dharmasya. The second line begins with glanir. This is actually one thought, split by the poetry of Bhagavad-gita. Dharmasya glanir, according to Srila Prabhupada, means “a decline of religious practice.” Tripurari Swami puts it to mean that “dharma is diminished.” Narayana Maharaja and Garuda dasa both translate it as “a decline in dharma.”

Dharma is a word often used, but rarely understood. On the surface, it means religious practices. But deeper than that, it means “spiritual duty.” Many Hindus will use it like “my dharma is to be a doctor” or some such silliness. Dharma does not equal job, dharma equals spiritual duty, or at the very least, religious practices.

The first two lines set up the verse. “Whenever there is a decline in the practice of spiritual duty….” The second line ends with bharata. Here, that is a name that Krishna calls Arjuna meaning “son of King Bharata.” King Bharata was the ruler and sort of founder of Vedic India. The term bharata was placed in different locations of the first part of the translated verse, depending on the style of the author. Both Srila Prabhupada and Garuda dasa keep it at the end of the second line. Narayana Maharaja and Tripurari Swami place it at or near the beginning.

Not only does there have to be a decline in religious practice, but there must be abhuyutthanam adharmasya, a rise of “irreligion,” as Srila Prabhupada coined. Tripurari Swami simply translates, “unrighteousness is on the rise.” Narayana Maharaja keeps with the Sanskrit terminology of adharma, the opposite of dharma.

Garuda dasa has an interesting angle on it. He translates the third line with “And an emerging of what opposes dharma.” What the other translators cover as a rise of unrighteousness or irreligion, he throws in a nearly personal touch. Something is in opposition to how it should be. It’s not just that things aren’t right, there is something knowingly making these things not right.

Krishna delivers in the fourth line, tadatmanam srjamy aham, “at that time, I [Krishna] manifest myself.” The word atmanam means “self” (or in this case, Self). Srjami is glossed by all as “manifest,” though Srila Prabhupada uses “descend” in his verse. Garuda puts it as “send forth” rather than “manifest” or “descend.” I feel it’s an odd choice. “Manifest” is probably most proper, though “descend” is a bit more specific.

Within his purport, Srila Prabhupada again hits upon his use of the word “wherever” in the first line. He knew that while much of what he was bringing could be seen as strictly Indian that God, Krishna, was not an Indian God.

“It is not a fact that the Lord appears only on Indian soil. He can advent Himself anywhere and everywhere, and whenever He desires to appear. In each and every incarnation, He speaks as much about religion as can be understood by the particular people under their particular circumstances. But the mission is the same – to lead people to God consciousness and obedience to the principles of religion. Sometimes He descends personally, and sometimes He sends His bona fide representative in the form of His son, or servant, or Himself in some disguised form.”

Each week I select a verse from the Bhagavad-gita and compare/contrast four different translations. These translators all subscribe to the Gaudia-Vaisnava philosophy. This examination isn’t to prove one more superior to another, but to highlight the similarities and learn from the differences in ideologies.

The four Gitas are:
-Bhagavad-gita: As It Is by Srila Prabhupada (1972 edition)
-Bhagavad-gita: It’s Feeling and Philosophy by Tripurari Swami
-Srimad Bhagavad-gita by Narayana Maharaja
-Bhagavad-gita: The Beloved Lord’s Secret Love Song by Garuda dasa (Graham Schweig)

Though I’m hardly qualified to do so, I dissect each translation, sometimes interjecting my own unsolicited commentary. More on this can be found here.

In the second chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, Arjuna the warrior has just surrendered to Krishna, God. He is requesting Krishna to teach him everything he needs to know.

This verse, 2.13, is a basic verse. It’s one of the most referenced and quoted. But it’s also one of the most difficult to realize. The second chapter as a whole is full of stuff like this. It’s the building blocks of spirituality, but even the great gurus and masters struggle with these realizations.

Two verses prior, Krishna explains to Arjuna that a wise person does not lament either for the living or the dead. In this verse, He explains further.

As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.
-Srila Prabhupada

Just as the embodied soul experiences changes of body, such as childhood, adulthood, and old age, so similarly it will acquire another body after death. Wise persons are not deluded about this.
-Tripurari Swami

Just as the embodied atma passes from boyhood to youth to old age, similarly, after death, he passes into another body. An intelligent person is not bewildered by the birth and death of the body.
-Narayana Maharaja

Just as the embodied
    while in this body
    passes through childhood,
    youth, and old age,
So also the embodied
    attains another body -
    the wise person
    is not bewildered by this.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

Krishna is setting up an analogy. It is understood that we are not the body, that we are spirit souls. We are the soul, we have a body. And just as we experience our bodies changing from a baby all the way to an old fellow, we will also experience a new body after this one dies. This is reincarnation, one of the core beliefs in many spiritual philosophies.

The first line dehino ‘smin yatha dehe is one of the few lines of Sanskrit that I have memorized. I have a lot of trouble with learning a language and very little sticks. This, however, has stuck (well, the first line of it).

All four translations match up here. “(Just) as the embodied soul…” Narayana Maharaja uses the Sanskrit term atma, which means soul. Garuda dasa, however, continues “Just as the embodied while in this body.” It seems a little awkward, but the Sanskrit and the other translations, except Narayana Maharaja’s supports that, though less awkwardly.

It does seem redundant to restate that an embodied soul is in a body. That is why both Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami slide that restatement into the next line, kaumaram yauvanam jara.

These three words are simply “from boyhood to youth to old age.” Only Tripurari Swami translates yauvanam to adulthood. While other Sanskrit sources and dictionaries translate this as “youth,” it does get the point across. We don’t go straight from youth to old age, though in the eyes of the elderly, I’m sure it seems like we do. Time flies….

The second half of the verse is the target of the analogy. As Garuda dasa has put it: “So also the embodied attains another body.” The term praptih, which ends this third line, is glossed as “achievement” by both Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja, though neither of them use it in their verses. Instead, they both use the word “passes,” as in “passes into another body.” Tripurari Swami glosses praptih as “acquiring.” Garuda dasa uses “attains.”

The slight variations in meaning between “achieve,” “pass,” “acquire,” and “attain” are too minuscule to break a sweat over.

Garuda dasa, whose version of the Gita attempts to follow the Sanskrit as much as possible, is the only translator to not mention death. The original Sanskrit verse does not mention death at all. But our other three translators clarify that it is “at death” or “after death” when the soul acquires another body. Though we may not like to hear this, we are going to die. But when we die, we will receive another body.

With the analogy complete, Krishna adds: dhiras tatra na muhyati. As Tripurari Swami puts it, “Wise persons are not deluded about this.”

Dhirah is a commonly used term describing a person. Sober, thoughtful and wise were used by our authors. Srila Prabhupada chose “sober” for his word-for-word rendering, but went with “self-realized” in his verse.

The Sanskrit doesn’t mention self-realization here. It only notes that a wise or sober person is not bewildered by this idea of changing bodies. Srila Prabhupada takes it a step farther, as he often does, interpreting the verse rather than providing a straight translation. In his purport, he again translates dhirah as sober.

A self-realized person is wise and sober, though not all wise or sober people are self-realized. But either way, they are all na nuhyati: not bewildered by this change.

All of the translations, except Tripurari Swami’s use “not bewildered.” He uses “not deluded,” just as his spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada used in his word-for-word (though wound up using “not bewildered” in his verse). Narayana Maharaja uses “not confused” in his word-for-word, though chose “not bewildered” in his verse translation, as does Garuda dasa.

The commentary of Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, as provided by Narayana Maharaja, sums up this verse very well:

The following point may be raised: Since the atma is associated with the body, the body will also be an object of our love. Furthermore, those who are related to the body, such as sons, brothers, relatives, grandsons and so on, will also be the objects of our love, so when they die we will certainly feel grief.

Sri Bhagavan [Krishna] speaks this sloka [verse] beginning with dehinah, in answer to this. “The jiva [soul] in the body attains boyhood; at the end of boyhood he attains youth, and at the end of youth he attains old age. Similarly, at the loss of the body he attains another body. Just as one does not grieve at the end of boyhood and youth, which are objects of love due to their relationship with the atma, similarly one should not grieve for the body itself, which is also an object of love due to its relationship with the atma, when it is lost.

If a person grieves when he attains old age at the loss of youth, then he also feels happy when he attains youth at the loss of boyhood. Therefore, you should feel happy because when Bhisma and Drona [Arjuna's relatives] lose their old bodies they will attain new ones.