Verse 16

In plain words

And here is one more reason why it is right to bear cold and heat and all the rest without giving in to grief and delusion — because:

Of the unreal there is no being. "The unreal" means: what is not found at all — cold, heat and the rest, and along with them the cause that produces them. "There is no being" means simply: it is not. No becoming, no is-ness.

When you actually examine cold and heat and their cause with sound reasoning, none of it holds up as truly real. It's just a modification — and every modification is unstable by nature. Take a pot: examine its shape with your eyes, and you'll find you never perceive that shape apart from the clay it's made of — so the shape itself isn't real, only the clay is. The same is true of every modification: it's never perceived apart from its cause, so it isn't real either. And notice — you never perceive the effect (the pot) or even its cause (the clay) before they arise or after they're destroyed, apart from some still-prior cause. Which means: none of it has real existence, all the way down.

Someone might object: 'If that's unreal, doesn't it follow that everything is unreal?' No — because in every single case, we actually notice two separate cognitions: 'it exists' and 'it is this particular thing.' Whatever a cognition never wavers on is real; whatever it wavers on is unreal. Once you see that the real and unreal are sorted this way, by how cognition behaves, you'll notice something everywhere: both cognitions attach to the very same thing, unlike, say, 'blue' and 'lotus' in 'blue lotus' which are genuinely two different features. Instead it's: 'it exists — a pot,' 'it exists — a cloth,' 'it exists — an elephant.' In every one of these, the 'pot,' 'cloth,' 'elephant' part of the cognition keeps changing — we already showed that. But the 'it exists' part never changes. So the object of 'pot,' 'cloth,' and so on is unreal, because it varies. But the object of 'it exists' is not unreal, precisely because it never varies.

Objection: when the pot is smashed, the thought "pot" fails — so the thought "it is" fails right along with it. No. That thought "it is" is seen in the cloth too, and in everything else. The one that failed had only the qualifier for its object.

Suppose you object: the idea 'pot' travels the same way the idea 'exists' does — you find it again in the next pot. No. In a cloth, and in everything else of that kind, it is not found at all.

You might object: when the pot is smashed, the cognition "it is" stops appearing too. No. That is because the thing being qualified has gone. The cognition "it is" had taken a qualifier for its object; with the qualified thing gone the qualifier cannot stand at all, so what would that cognition now be about? Its disappearance is not because the object of the cognition of being has gone missing.

Objection: two words can share one and the same locus only if there is something there to be qualified — a pot, some actual thing; with nothing present, talk of a single locus is untenable. No. Point at a mirage and say "this is water." One of the two terms has nothing behind it, and the co-reference is still there to be seen.

So the body and all that goes with it, and the pairs of opposites along with their cause — being unreal — have no existence at all. And the Self, which is, has no non-existence: there is no moment of its simply not being there, because nowhere does it ever deviate. That is what we have said.

So here is the final, settled conclusion about the Self and the not-Self, the real and the unreal, reached by those who see the truth: the real is always, only, real; the unreal is always, only, unreal. And why is it called 'tattva,' truth? 'Tat' is simply the word 'that' — and since all of this is Brahman, 'that' is its name; being 'that' is what 'tattva' means — it's just Brahman's own true nature. And those whose very nature is to see that reality directly are called 'seers of truth.' You too, Arjuna — rely on that same vision the truth-seers have. Drop your grief, drop your delusion, and settle it firmly in your mind: these dualities, cold and heat and the rest, shifting and unshifting as they are, are nothing but an unreal modification, appearing falsely, exactly like water shimmering in a mirage. Once you've settled that, simply endure them.

Close to the Sanskrit

And for this reason too, without having made grief and delusion, the enduring of cold, heat and the rest is fitting — since —

Not of the unreal — of the non-existent, of cold, heat and the rest together with their cause — is there found, that is, there is not, being, that is, becoming, is-ness.

For cold, heat, and so on, together with their cause, when examined by the means of valid knowledge, do not turn out to be a truly existing entity. It is indeed a modification, and a modification is subject to change. Just as the shape of a pot and so on, when examined by the eye, is unreal because it is not perceived apart from clay, so too every modification is unreal because it is not perceived apart from its cause. Because of non-perception — before its birth and after its destruction — of the effect (such as a pot) and of its cause (such as clay), apart from that prior cause, there is no real existence [in either case].

If [it be objected]: 'From that non-existence, the absurd consequence of the non-existence of everything would follow' — [we reply]: No; because everywhere two [kinds of] cognition are observed — the cognition 'it is real' and the cognition 'it is this [named thing].' That regarding which the cognition does not vary is real; that regarding which it varies is unreal — thus, the distinction between real and unreal being dependent on cognition, in every case both cognitions are apprehended by everyone with the same substratum — not like [a case such as] 'blue lotus' — [namely] 'It exists — a pot'; 'it exists — a cloth'; 'it exists — an elephant.' Thus, in every case, of these two cognitions, the cognition 'pot' and so on varies; and this has [already] been shown. But the cognition 'it is real' does not [vary]. Therefore, the object of the cognition 'pot' and so on is unreal, because it varies; but the object of the cognition 'it is real' is not [unreal], because it does not vary.

If [it be objected]: when the pot is destroyed, the pot-cognition failing, the existence-cognition also fails — no; because the existence-cognition is seen in cloth and the rest as well. That existence-cognition has only the qualifier for its object.

If it be said that, like the cognition 'exists', the cognition 'pot' too is seen in another pot — no; because of its non-perception in cloth and the like.

If it be said: "The cognition of being also is not seen when the pot is destroyed" — no; because of the absence of the qualified. The cognition of being, being one that has the qualifier for its object, when the qualified is absent and the qualifier therefore cannot be established, what object would it have? But not, on the other hand, because of the absence of the object of the cognition of being.

If [it be urged that] having one and the same locus is not tenable in the absence of a qualifiable thing such as a pot and the rest — no; because co-reference is observed even in the absence of one of the two, as in 'this is water' with regard to a mirage and the like.

Therefore, of the body and the rest, and of the pair of opposites together with its cause — all being unreal — existence is not found: thus. And likewise, of the Self, which is real, non-existence, the state of not being present, is not found, because everywhere there is no deviation: thus we have said.

Thus, of the Self and the non-Self, of the real and the unreal, of both — the observed, apprehended final conclusion [is]: 'The real is indeed [always] real, the unreal is indeed [always] unreal' — thus, regarding these two, as stated above, by the seers of truth. 'Tat' [in 'tattvadarśin'] means [it is] a pronoun; and all this is Brahman — its name is 'tat,' thus; the state of being that is 'tattva' — the true nature of Brahman. Those whose habit it is to see that are the 'seers of truth'; by them, 'the seers of truth' is meant. You too, relying on the vision of the seers of truth, having abandoned grief and delusion, having settled in your mind that these dualities — cold, heat, and so on, of fixed and unfixed nature — [namely] 'this modification is indeed unreal, it merely appears falsely, like the water of a mirage' — endure [them]; such is the purport.

In plain words

Kṛṣṇa Paramātma taught the discernment of Sat and Asat: ‘The Ātma alone is the real entity; the body and the rest are mātrāsparśas; non-being never comes to Sat, nor being to Asat; they never have and never will.’