No reason remains to withhold the bow before the one who is greater than all and lies beyond being and non-being.
Arjuna does not ask whether the perfected ones bow to Krishna; he asks how they could possibly fail to. What follows is not a burst of feeling but a chain of reasons, each title its own ground, ending in the highest word scripture keeps: the imperishable, the existent, the non-existent, and what lies beyond them both.
And why should they not bow to you, great one, you who are greater than all, the first maker even of Brahma? Boundless one, lord of the gods, home of the universe, you are the imperishable: you are the existent, the non-existent, and that which lies beyond both.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
The hosts of perfected beings and great seers stand before this form, and here you watch Arjuna gather the grounds that make their bowing the only fitting response. He is not pouring out feeling. He is laying down reasons, title by title.
The teaching
Why should they not bow to you? The question carries no real doubt in it. It is the strongest praise there is: not 'they bow,' but 'how could they possibly fail to bow.' No reason remains to hold the homage back. Then the grounds arrive, each title its own separate case. You are the great Self, weightier than Brahma, the first maker even of Brahma, the very creator of the creator. You are the endless one, the lord of the gods, the dwelling-place that holds the whole world. To be the controller, the teacher, the begetter: any one of these alone would earn worship, and here they meet together in a single being. You are named the Imperishable, the highest reality the deepest teaching keeps in reserve, not one more wonder within the world but the ground the world itself rests upon. And then the climax: you are the existent and the non-existent both, and you are that which lies beyond the two. Two poles, and a third past them, and all three are none but you. Sridhara, reading this verse closely, adds a small but telling remark: the praise is built as a chain of grounds, not a flash of feeling, so that the heart, even in tears before such a sight, is doing right reasoning all the while.
The doubt that rises
If one being is called the existent, the non-existent, and what is beyond both, all at once, is that heaped-up praise without content, or does it actually hold together and mean something specific?
Where the paths divide
Read as the one Imperishable wearing the pair as borrowed forms.
Shankara reads the existent and the non-existent as limits laid upon the Imperishable rather than as its final nature. The existent is simply what is there, the manifest; the non-existent is that of which the thought 'it is not there' arises, the unmanifest. Krishna is loosely called existent-and-non-existent because these are the adjuncts through which the Imperishable is approached, but in highest truth it lies beyond both the real and the unreal. That transcendent reality, the very thing the knowers of the Veda speak of, is Krishna alone and no other.
Read as three real, ordered principles, all belonging to him as his own body.
Ramanuja treats the terms as precise rather than figurative. The imperishable names the individual self, since scripture says the wise self is neither born nor dies. The existent and the non-existent name matter itself in its two states, as effect it bears name and form and is called existent, as cause it lacks that division and is called non-existent. And that which is beyond is the liberated self, higher than matter and higher than the self bound to matter. Three real principles, in order, and all of them, Ramanuja insists, are Krishna's own, since all are his body and depend on him.
Read through the Mahabharata, with each title anchored in the epic's own words.
Madhva does not treat these titles as free-floating praise. Great Self, he explains, means both full and the Self, and he traces the very word atman to the Mahabharata's own account of what makes a self a self. The closing phrase, beyond that, he glosses directly from the epic's line that the world is both non-existent and existent, and that the Lord is what lies beyond the existent and the non-existent. What survives of his comment here is brief and citational, but its direction holds: the Lord remains the distinct source who gives the world its being, not the world itself under another name.
Read through what can and cannot be grasped in cognition.
Abhinavagupta explains the pair through knowing rather than being at large. The Lord is being because he truly is; he is non-being because the senses cannot reach him as an object. Even what looks like non-being, once the mind ties it to a name, takes shape as a thought, and that thought, he adds, is never separate from the being of the supreme Reality. So nothing actually stands outside the one reality, not even apparent non-being. He is beyond both, finally, because his own form shows itself only when the very thought of is and is-not falls silent. The extant text stops at this point; a further Kashmir Shaiva elaboration tying this to recognition or to the vibration of consciousness would be a plausible extension of the idea, not Abhinavagupta's own recorded words.
Read as a counted chain of grounds, reasoning and devotion moving together.
Sridhara answers the verse's own question, for what reason, with care. Greater than Brahma, the first doer, the very originator of Brahma; the existent as the manifest, the non-existent as the unmanifest, and beyond both the root-cause, the imperishable Brahman, none other than Krishna. He counts nine such grounds in all, and adds a note about the praise itself: it is a chain of grounds, not a burst of feeling, so that the bhakta's heart, even while moved to tears, is at the very same time reasoning rightly.
Read as each title independently sufficient, so their sum forecloses every objection.
Madhusudana's gloss, read for a present-day sense of the verse, holds that to be the controller, or the instructor, or the begetter, would each alone already justify the bowing. Their meeting in a single being does not merely stack up praise; it removes every possible ground for withholding reverence at all. The existent, on his reading, is what is grasped as 'it is,' the non-existent as 'it is not,' or, more simply, the manifest and the unmanifest, and the Lord is both, and also what lies beyond them, so that nothing whatsoever remains apart from him.
All six readings agree the question is rhetorical and the titles are reasons, not decoration. They part on what the closing pair, existent and non-existent, and what lies beyond, actually names: adjuncts of one transcendent reality, three real ordered principles belonging to the Lord as his body, an epic-grounded relation of dependence, a fact about what cognition can and cannot grasp, or a counted chain of devotional and rational grounds together. This page does not choose among them.
A question to carry
When reverence rises in you before something greater than yourself, can you find the reasons underneath the feeling, the way Arjuna does here, title by title, or does it stay wordless?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
May the homage that rises in you before what is highest be, as Sridhara says of this very verse, a chain of grounds and not only a flash of feeling, so that your heart's bowing and your mind's seeing are never asked to compete.
Each school is voiced from the commentators named above. Their full words, every translation, and where the schools agree and differ wait in the reading desk just below. Open the commentary desk.
Arjuna has just named the hosts of perfected beings and great seers gazing on the cosmic form; here he turns to ask why they should not bow, and the whole verse becomes his own answer to his own question.
Where they agreethe convergence
Across schools and centuries the commentators come to the same ground. These are the points they share, and the voices that hold each one.
The question 'why should they not bow' is not doubt; it is the strongest praise there is, since it leaves no other answer standing.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
Arjuna's opening words are read as a rhetorical question rather than a real doubt. 'Why should they not bow to you' is a way of saying there is no conceivable reason for the perfected beings and great seers to withhold their salutation; bowing is simply what fits. The question shape is itself the strongest form of praise, since it leaves no room for any other answer.
Each title, great Self, weightier than Brahma, first maker even of the maker, endless one, lord of the gods, is its own separate ground for reverence.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhva · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 3 others’ words
The titles Arjuna heaps on Krishna are read as a deliberately built chain of grounds rather than a burst of feeling. Great Self, weightier than Brahma, first maker even of Brahma, endless one, lord of the gods, dwelling place of the world: each is treated as a separate reason, any one of which alone would justify worship, so that gathered together they make the homage no wonder at all.
To be the controller, the teacher, and the begetter would each alone justify worship; gathered in one being, they make the bowing no wonder at all.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
Krishna is declared the akshara, the Imperishable, the highest reality the Vedanta texts speak of. This is read as Arjuna's recognition that the form in front of him is not one more wonder within the world but the very ground the world rests upon, the ultimate principle scripture reaches for when it speaks of what does not perish.
Krishna is named the Imperishable, not one more thing inside the world but the very ground the world rests upon.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, Kashmir Śaiva, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhva · Abhinavagupta · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 4 others’ words
The closing pair, sat and asat, the existent and the non-existent, is read as naming a real opposition, most often glossed as the manifest and the unmanifest, and Krishna is declared to be both. This is not treated as a contradiction but as the deliberate naming of two poles that between them leave nothing out.
The climax names two poles, the existent and the non-existent, and a third beyond them, so that nothing whatsoever stands apart from him.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Kashmir Śaiva, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Abhinavagupta · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 3 others’ words
The verse then adds a third term, 'that which is beyond both,' and every reading treats this as the climax rather than an afterthought: Krishna is not merely the sum of the two visible poles but also the reality that exceeds and grounds them, so that nothing whatsoever, manifest, unmanifest, or beyond, stands apart from him.
This is the shared ground; it can be carried as it is. Below is where they differ.
Where they differthe divergence
Viśiṣṭādvaita, in their fuller words
Ramanuja gives the three terms of the verse precise, non-figurative referents. The imperishable names the principle of the individual self, which scripture shows does not perish. Sat and asat name matter itself in its two states, as effect bearing name and form, and as cause without that division. And 'that which is beyond' names the principle of the liberated self, higher than matter and than the self joined with it. Three real, ordered principles, all declared to be Krishna's own body.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva anchors every title in the Mahabharata's own definitions rather than treating them as free praise. Great Self means full and continuous; the closing 'beyond that' is glossed directly from the epic's line that the world is both non-existent and existent, and that the Lord is what lies beyond the existent and the non-existent. The dependence implied is causal, the world's being is given by him, not identical with him.
Shaiva, in their fuller words
Abhinavagupta reads the pair through cognition: being, because the Lord truly is; non-being, because the senses cannot reach him as an object. Even non-being, once named and given mental shape, is not separate from the being of the supreme Reality, so it is folded back into the one reality rather than standing outside it. His own form shows itself when the very thought of is and is-not falls away. The surviving text stops here; any further Kashmir Shaiva elaboration linking this to recognition or the vibration of consciousness is a plausible extension, not Abhinavagupta's stated words.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara counts nine distinct grounds for the bowing, treating the whole verse as reasoned argument rather than emotional outburst. The existent is the manifest, the non-existent the unmanifest, and beyond both stands the root-cause, the imperishable Brahman, none other than Krishna. His own note is telling: the praise is a chain of grounds, not a flash of feeling, so the devotee's tears and the devotee's reasoning move together, not against each other.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Madhusudana's careful gloss lends itself to a clear modern restatement: each title, controller, teacher, begetter, is independently sufficient reason for reverence, so their conjunction in one being does not merely add up praise but removes every possible ground for withholding it. The existent is what 'is,' the non-existent is what 'is not,' or, in the more usual Gita sense, the manifest and the unmanifest; and the root cause beyond both leaves nothing whatsoever apart from him.
A few questions to carry
These ask for understanding, not recall; each answer is settled by the commentary itself.
For a second sitting
Carry this with youwhat stays
Sit for a moment with Sridhara's small but exact observation: the praise is a chain of grounds, not only a flash of feeling. Notice, the next time reverence rises in you toward something greater than yourself, whether you can find the reasons underneath the feeling, the way Arjuna does here, title by title. Let the heart's bowing and the mind's seeing walk together rather than compete.
Let the reverence that rises in you before what is greater than yourself be, as Sridhara says of Arjuna's own words, a chain of grounds and not only a flash of feeling, so that the heart's bowing and the mind's seeing walk together.
Read deeper
Everything a full study holds, folded below.
Word by word
All the commentary, woven together
The commentary, woven together
machine-assisted draft, pending review
Convergence
rjuna's opening words are read as a rhetorical question rather than a real doubt. 'Why should they not bow to you' is a way of saying there is no conceivable reason for the perfected beings and great seers to withhold their salutation; bowing is simply what fits. The question shape is itself the strongest form of praise, since it leaves no room for any other answer.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The titles Arjuna heaps on Krishna are read as a deliberately built chain of grounds rather than a burst of feeling. Great Self, weightier than Brahma, first maker even of Brahma, endless one, lord of the gods, dwelling place of the world: each is treated as a separate reason, any one of which alone would justify worship, so that gathered together they make the homage no wonder at all.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Krishna is declared the akshara, the Imperishable, the highest reality the Vedanta texts speak of. This is read as Arjuna's recognition that the form in front of him is not one more wonder within the world but the very ground the world rests upon, the ultimate principle scripture reaches for when it speaks of what does not perish.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The closing pair, sat and asat, the existent and the non-existent, is read as naming a real opposition, most often glossed as the manifest and the unmanifest, and Krishna is declared to be both. This is not treated as a contradiction but as the deliberate naming of two poles that between them leave nothing out.
Braided from 6 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The verse then adds a third term, 'that which is beyond both,' and every reading treats this as the climax rather than an afterthought: Krishna is not merely the sum of the two visible poles but also the reality that exceeds and grounds them, so that nothing whatsoever, manifest, unmanifest, or beyond, stands apart from him.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara reads sat and asat as limiting adjuncts laid upon the one Imperishable, not as ultimate features of what it is. The real is the existing, the manifest; the unreal is that of which the thought 'it is not there' arises. Krishna is loosely called existent-and-non-existent because these serve as the appearances through which the Imperishable is approached, but in highest truth the akshara lies beyond both, and that transcendent thing, spoken of by the knowers of the Veda, is Krishna alone.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja gives the three terms of the verse precise, non-figurative referents. The imperishable names the principle of the individual self, which scripture shows does not perish. Sat and asat name matter itself in its two states, as effect bearing name and form, and as cause without that division. And 'that which is beyond' names the principle of the liberated self, higher than matter and than the self joined with it. Three real, ordered principles, all declared to be Krishna's own body.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva anchors every title in the Mahabharata's own definitions rather than treating them as free praise. Great Self means full and continuous; the closing 'beyond that' is glossed directly from the epic's line that the world is both non-existent and existent, and that the Lord is what lies beyond the existent and the non-existent. The dependence implied is causal, the world's being is given by him, not identical with him.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta reads the pair through cognition: being, because the Lord truly is; non-being, because the senses cannot reach him as an object. Even non-being, once named and given mental shape, is not separate from the being of the supreme Reality, so it is folded back into the one reality rather than standing outside it. His own form shows itself when the very thought of is and is-not falls away. The surviving text stops here; any further Kashmir Shaiva elaboration linking this to recognition or the vibration of consciousness is a plausible extension, not Abhinavagupta's stated words.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara counts nine distinct grounds for the bowing, treating the whole verse as reasoned argument rather than emotional outburst. The existent is the manifest, the non-existent the unmanifest, and beyond both stands the root-cause, the imperishable Brahman, none other than Krishna. His own note is telling: the praise is a chain of grounds, not a flash of feeling, so the devotee's tears and the devotee's reasoning move together, not against each other.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Madhusudana's careful gloss lends itself to a clear modern restatement: each title, controller, teacher, begetter, is independently sufficient reason for reverence, so their conjunction in one being does not merely add up praise but removes every possible ground for withholding it. The existent is what 'is,' the non-existent is what 'is not,' or, in the more usual Gita sense, the manifest and the unmanifest; and the root cause beyond both leaves nothing whatsoever apart from him.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If one being is called the existent, the non-existent, and what lies beyond both at once, is that just heaped-up praise, or does it actually mean something coherent?
It is coherent, and the shape recurs across the readings: two poles, most often glossed as the manifest and the unmanifest, and a third term that exceeds them. To call Krishna both existent and non-existent is to say nothing in either phase of reality falls outside him; the pairing names totality, not contradiction.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The verse does not stop at the pair, though; it adds 'that which is beyond both.' On Shankara's reading this keeps the Lord from being reduced to the sum of what he pervades, since in highest truth the Imperishable transcends the very adjuncts through which it is named.
Śaṅkarācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Where the readings differ is in what the three terms actually pick out, adjuncts of a single transcendent reality, or, as Ramanuja reads them, three real ordered principles belonging to the Lord as his own body. So the line is not loose praise piled on praise. It is a compact claim about reality, and the disagreement is about what the claim contains, not about whether it means something.
Rāmānujācārya · Śaṅkarācārya
Contemplation
Sit for a moment with Sridhara's small but exact observation: the praise is a chain of grounds, not only a flash of feeling. Notice, the next time reverence rises in you toward something greater than yourself, whether you can find the reasons underneath the feeling, the way Arjuna does here, title by title. Let the heart's bowing and the mind's seeing walk together rather than compete.
Sit with this · sonnet-5-authored
All the translations and commentary
Pull up a chair.
You have come to sit with this verse. When you are ready to hear the translators and the commentators in full, open a tradition in the doorways below, or add a voice by name above.
Also hear this verse, tradition by tradition.