By Ajit Krishna Dasa

The Verse in Question

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 2.20 (1972 authorized edition):

na jāyate mriyate vā kadācin nāyaṁ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ
“He is never born, nor does he ever die. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be.” (Bhagavad-gītā 2.20)

In his posthumously edited edition of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, Jayadvaita Swami altered the translation of this verse, claiming that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original wording — “Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be” — wrongly suggests that the soul was created. He presented this change as a clarification meant to align more closely with Vaiṣṇava philosophy. Yet when the verse is examined carefully, both linguistically and philosophically, that justification collapses entirely.

What the Sanskrit Actually Says

The Sanskrit word bhūtvā comes from the root bhū — “to be” or “to exist.” It is a gerund, which describes a state of being rather than a beginning of being.

Thus nāyaṁ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ means:

“Being as he is, he never ceases to exist.”

The verse already states na jāyate — “he is never born.” So bhūtvā cannot possibly mean “having come into being.” That would contradict the first line. It simply means “being,” or “existing as he eternally is.”

The English Phrase “Having Once Been”

Even in modern English, “having once been” does not imply creation or a starting point. It marks a condition of existence, not the moment when existence began.

For example:

• “Having once been eternal, He remains so.”
• “If God exists, He exists eternally.”

These statements are logical, not chronological. Prabhupāda’s phrase “having once been” works the same way: once existing, the soul never ceases to exist. The meaning is continuity — not origin.

The Logical Flow of the Verse

The internal structure of Bhagavad-gītā 2.20 rules out any notion of the soul’s creation:

1. na jāyate mriyate vā kadācin – The soul is never born, nor does he ever die.
2. nāyaṁ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ – Being as he is, he never ceases to be.
3. ajo nityaḥ śāśvato ’yaṁ purāṇaḥ – He is unborn, eternal, everlasting, and primeval.

Every clause intensifies the previous one. The text is a fortress of logic: no beginning, no end, no interruption.

Why the Translation Is Correct

Some modern editors, including Jayadvaita Swami, have claimed to “clarify” or “improve” Prabhupāda’s wording through posthumous editing. But there is no justification for altering this verse.

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s translation of bhūtvā as “having once been” captures the precise logic of the Sanskrit while remaining grammatically sound. It ties the affirmation of eternal existence directly to the denial of both birth and death already stated.

To “fix” it would be to misread both English and Sanskrit — and to step outside the Arsa-prayoga principle, which forbids tampering with the words of an ācārya.

The Core Meaning

This verse does not trace a timeline; it asserts an eternal truth:

Existence itself, once real, never becomes unreal.

Thus, “For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be,” simply means:

“If the soul exists, he exists eternally.”

The statement is not about a moment of existence — it is about the nature of existence itself.

Conclusion

The claim that Bhagavad-gītā 2.20 implies a beginning for the soul collapses under both grammar and logic. The Sanskrit bhūtvā affirms being, not becoming; the English “having once been” conveys continuity, not creation.

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original translation stands perfectly clear and theologically precise. The posthumous “correction” does not not clarify the truth — it obscures it.

The soul’s existence is beginningless, endless, and indestructible. And so is the authority of the Bhagavad-gītā As It Is as Śrīla Prabhupāda gave it.