Arjuna apologizes for how easily he loved Krishna, not for having loved him.
Having just seen all worlds gathered in one form, Arjuna turns back to the friend he once addressed by name alone, and asks pardon. It is easy to hear this as a retraction of the friendship. Read closely, it is the opposite: the plea itself is the proof of how much had truly been leaned on.
Not knowing your greatness, and thinking you only my friend and equal, I called out to you carelessly, or out of affection, saying 'Krishna,' 'Yadava,' 'friend' — for all of that, forgive me.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
The whole cosmos has just stood revealed in a single form, every world held inside it. Now, still shaken, Arjuna turns back to the one he used to call by name alone, and begins to ask forgiveness.
The teaching
You used to call him plainly, the way you call an equal: Krishna, Yadava, friend. You had taken him for your comrade, someone your own age, your own standing, and so you spoke without the reverence that was, all along, owed to him. Notice carefully what the apology is actually for. It is not for the affection. Every source that speaks to the cause here is careful on this point: the fault lies only in the not-knowing, the greatness now standing before you as the cosmic form, unseen while the easy words were spoken. Two things moved you toward that ease, a carelessness, a mind that had simply never turned to look, and a fondness, the ordinary trust that real closeness carries. The sources that comment here refuse to blame the second. Only the not-knowing asks pardon; the love that ran alongside it was never the problem. And where the reading goes deeper, it arrives at something almost paradoxical: the apology does not retract the friendship, it proves it. Only someone who has truly leaned on another apologizes for having leaned. So the very words of pardon are, themselves, a second and deeper declaration of the same closeness, not its undoing. The vision has not pushed the dear friend out of view. It has set that friendship inside a vaster measure, and you are the one who notices the new measure first and says so aloud.
The doubt that rises
If the affection was always real and always sincere, why does clearer sight of the one you loved have to pass through an apology at all, rather than simply continuing on as before?
Where the paths divide
Read from Shankara's close attention to the grammar of the offense.
You assumed a parity that was never really there, and that assumption alone is what let you speak with the ease owed only between equals. Whether the words came from a scattered, careless mind or from plain fondness, both are read as products of the same not-knowing; neither is weighed as graver than the other. The correction is not a change in how much you loved, but in what you had failed to see while loving.
Read from Ramanuja's naming of concrete, specific greatness.
The greatness you missed has a definite shape: endless power, measureless might, the inner self of every being, the maker of all things. Missing this, you spoke as to an ordinary friend. What matters most in this reading is who is now being asked for pardon: not a friend who might shrug the offense off, but the one beyond all measure. The friendship is not dissolved by this address. It is, for the first time, set inside its true and larger frame.
Read honestly as silence, with any extension clearly flagged.
No comment survives from Madhva at this verse. Offered explicitly as a conditional extrapolation and not his stated view: even your old capacity for easy, familiar speech would, on a Dvaita reading, have depended entirely on the very Lord you addressed too casually, so that the whole history of the friendship, offense included, occurred inside a dependence you had not yet recognized as such.
Read honestly as silence, with any extension clearly flagged.
No comment survives from Abhinavagupta at this verse either; his compressed digest passes over this plea for pardon entirely. Offered explicitly as a conditional extrapolation: fixing Krishna under the single name 'friend' might be read as a contracted awareness mistaking one wave for the whole ocean it rose from, and the apology itself as an act of recognition completing itself in speech, not a doctrine he is known to have stated here.
Read from Sridhara's distinctive claim that the plea proves rather than retracts.
Notice what the apology actually shows. Only someone who has truly leaned on a friend apologizes for having leaned; the plea is not evidence the friendship was hollow, it is evidence the friendship was real enough to now be measured against something vaster. The dear friend has not been pushed out of the picture by the cosmic form. He has been set inside a larger frame, and you are the one who notices this first.
Read from Madhusudana's precise psychological account.
What you spoke was not careless slippage alone. It carried a bold pride, an unstated assumption that you and he stood on the same footing. Naming that pride now, in the very words once used wrongly, is not a private feeling kept to yourself; it is how a corrected way of seeing becomes real and settles into how the relationship is actually carried forward from here.
The commentary that survives here ranges from precise and exacting to entirely silent, and that range is left standing rather than smoothed over. What the apology finally does to the friendship, whether it is corrected footing within an unchanged closeness, a dependence now made explicit, or a recognition completing itself, is not settled by the sources that remain, and this page does not settle it either. What is not in question is that the not-knowing, not the love, is what asked forgiveness.
A question to carry
When have you loved someone easily enough that you stopped noticing how much greatness in them you had never really seen, and what would it mean to name that gap honestly, without letting the naming become distance?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
So let the apology widen what you already have rather than replace it. Name the specific blindness plainly, keep the whole of the old affection, and let the friendship stand from here inside its truer, larger measure.
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.
The cosmic vision still standing before him, Arjuna turns from awe to confession, naming the very words, Krishna, Yadava, friend, that he once spoke without knowing whom he addressed.
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.
Arjuna took Krishna for an ordinary friend and equal, and on that mistaken footing spoke to him with the ease owed only between comrades.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
Every source that comments here agrees on the shape of the confession: Arjuna took Krishna for an ordinary friend and equal, and on that mistaken footing addressed him too casually, calling out 'Krishna,' 'Yadava,' 'friend,' the plain speech between comrades rather than the reverence owed the Lord of all.
The offense is measured against a specific not-knowing: the very greatness now standing revealed as the cosmic form, unseen while the easy words were spoken.
Across Advaita, ViśiṣṭādvaitaŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 1 others’ words
The cause named is the same across every reading that speaks to it: not knowing this greatness, the very majesty now standing revealed as the cosmic form. Had the greatness been seen, the easy address would never have been risked; the offense is measured exactly against that not-knowing, not against the affection itself.
Two causes are named and kept apart, carelessness and affection, and the sources agree that only the not-knowing asks forgiveness; the fondness itself was never the fault.
Across AdvaitaŚaṅkara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara and Madhusūdana’s words
Two distinct causes are named and kept apart rather than merged: carelessness, a scattered or inattentive mind, and affection, the fondness and trust of real closeness. Where the sources dwell on this distinction, they decline to treat the second as any kind of fault; only the not-knowing asks forgiveness, not the love that ran alongside it.
Where the commentary develops further, it converges on one claim: the apology proves the friendship rather than undoing it, since only real closeness produces this kind of plea.
Across Bhakti, ViśiṣṭādvaitaŚrīdhara · RāmānujaIn Śrīdhara and Rāmānuja’s words
Where the commentary develops the point further, it converges on a single claim: the apology does not cancel the friendship but proves it. Only someone who has truly leaned on a friend apologizes for having leaned, so the very act of asking pardon is itself the evidence that the closeness was never pretense.
Two of the six acaryas on file, Madhva and Abhinavagupta, are silent at this verse; that silence is reported honestly here rather than filled with invented words.
Across Dvaita, Kashmir ŚaivaMadhva · AbhinavaguptaIn Madhva and Abhinavagupta’s words
Two of the six acaryas on file, Madhva and Abhinavagupta, are silent at this verse in the surviving record. Rather than papering over that gap, it is named here as a shared feature of the source material: this particular plea for pardon drew no comment from either, and nothing beyond a clearly flagged extension should be offered in their names.
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 spells out the greatness in concrete terms, endless power, measureless might, indwelling self of all, maker of all things, and reads the plain address as proof of how thoroughly these attributes had gone unseen. His distinctive note is that the apology is addressed to the one who is beyond all measure, not to a friend who might simply shrug it off; the friendship is not undone by this but is, for the first time, set inside its true and vaster frame.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
No comment survives from Madhva at this verse. Offered explicitly as a conditional extrapolation, not his stated view: on a Dvaita reading, even Arjuna's old capacity for easy, familiar speech would itself have been sustained by the very Lord he addressed too casually, so that the offense occurred inside a dependence Arjuna had not yet recognized as such.
Shaiva, in their fuller words
No comment survives from Abhinavagupta at this verse either; his compressed digest passes over this plea for pardon. Offered explicitly as a conditional extrapolation: on a Kashmir Shaiva reading, fixing Krishna under the single name 'friend' would be read as a contracted awareness mistaking one wave for the whole ocean, and the apology as an act of recognition, pratyabhijna, completing itself in speech.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara's distinctive move is to read the apology as proof rather than retraction: only one who has truly leaned on a friend apologizes for having leaned. The vision has not displaced the dear friend from view; it has set that friendship inside a vaster measure, and the devotee is the first to recognize and name the widening.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Madhusudana keeps the psychological account exact and undramatic: a bold pride that assumed parity, and two distinct causes, a scattered mind and plain fondness, kept carefully apart rather than blurred together. Read against his fuller architecture, this confession functions as the hinge where a corrected estimate is not merely felt in silence but spoken aloud, in the very words once spoken wrongly.
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
Bring to mind someone you have loved so easily that you stopped noticing how much of them you had never really seen. Do not rush to feel ashamed of the ease itself; the ease was real affection, not a flaw to be scrubbed out. Instead, notice only the specific blindness, the greatness that went unseen while the closeness was assumed. Let the noticing widen what you already have, rather than replacing it with a stiffer, more careful distance.
So when you see, at last, how much you had underestimated someone you love, do not let the seeing turn to distance. Name the blindness, keep the love, and let the friendship stand inside its truer, larger measure.
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
very source that comments here agrees on the shape of the confession: Arjuna took Krishna for an ordinary friend and equal, and on that mistaken footing addressed him too casually, calling out 'Krishna,' 'Yadava,' 'friend,' the plain speech between comrades rather than the reverence owed the Lord of all.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The cause named is the same across every reading that speaks to it: not knowing this greatness, the very majesty now standing revealed as the cosmic form. Had the greatness been seen, the easy address would never have been risked; the offense is measured exactly against that not-knowing, not against the affection itself.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Two distinct causes are named and kept apart rather than merged: carelessness, a scattered or inattentive mind, and affection, the fondness and trust of real closeness. Where the sources dwell on this distinction, they decline to treat the second as any kind of fault; only the not-knowing asks forgiveness, not the love that ran alongside it.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Where the commentary develops the point further, it converges on a single claim: the apology does not cancel the friendship but proves it. Only someone who has truly leaned on a friend apologizes for having leaned, so the very act of asking pardon is itself the evidence that the closeness was never pretense.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Rāmānujācārya
Two of the six acaryas on file, Madhva and Abhinavagupta, are silent at this verse in the surviving record. Rather than papering over that gap, it is named here as a shared feature of the source material: this particular plea for pardon drew no comment from either, and nothing beyond a clearly flagged extension should be offered in their names.
Madhvācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara stays close to the grammar of the offense: Arjuna assumed a parity with Krishna that let him speak with the ease of an equal, and this ease is itself the sign of how completely the greatness had gone unrecognized. He credits both named causes, carelessness and fondness, as equally products of that same not-knowing, without ranking one as graver than the other.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja spells out the greatness in concrete terms, endless power, measureless might, indwelling self of all, maker of all things, and reads the plain address as proof of how thoroughly these attributes had gone unseen. His distinctive note is that the apology is addressed to the one who is beyond all measure, not to a friend who might simply shrug it off; the friendship is not undone by this but is, for the first time, set inside its true and vaster frame.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
No comment survives from Madhva at this verse. Offered explicitly as a conditional extrapolation, not his stated view: on a Dvaita reading, even Arjuna's old capacity for easy, familiar speech would itself have been sustained by the very Lord he addressed too casually, so that the offense occurred inside a dependence Arjuna had not yet recognized as such.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
No comment survives from Abhinavagupta at this verse either; his compressed digest passes over this plea for pardon. Offered explicitly as a conditional extrapolation: on a Kashmir Shaiva reading, fixing Krishna under the single name 'friend' would be read as a contracted awareness mistaking one wave for the whole ocean, and the apology as an act of recognition, pratyabhijna, completing itself in speech.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara's distinctive move is to read the apology as proof rather than retraction: only one who has truly leaned on a friend apologizes for having leaned. The vision has not displaced the dear friend from view; it has set that friendship inside a vaster measure, and the devotee is the first to recognize and name the widening.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Madhusudana keeps the psychological account exact and undramatic: a bold pride that assumed parity, and two distinct causes, a scattered mind and plain fondness, kept carefully apart rather than blurred together. Read against his fuller architecture, this confession functions as the hinge where a corrected estimate is not merely felt in silence but spoken aloud, in the very words once spoken wrongly.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If my affection for someone was always sincere, why would seeing them more clearly ever require an apology?
Because the apology is not aimed at the affection itself. Every source that speaks to the cause is careful to keep fondness separate from fault: what asks forgiveness is only the not-knowing, the greatness that went unseen while the easy address was assumed. The love was never the problem.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Because the apology is where the correction becomes real rather than staying a private, unspoken realization. Ramanuja's reading makes this explicit: the plea is addressed to the one now known to be beyond all measure, which means the new seeing has to be spoken, not merely felt, before it can settle into how you actually address the person again.
Rāmānujācārya
And because, on Sridhara's reading, the apology does not cancel what came before it; it proves it. Only someone who has truly leaned on another apologizes for having leaned. So the very words of pardon are themselves a second, deeper declaration of the closeness, not its undoing.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Contemplation
Bring to mind someone you have loved so easily that you stopped noticing how much of them you had never really seen. Do not rush to feel ashamed of the ease itself; the ease was real affection, not a flaw to be scrubbed out. Instead, notice only the specific blindness, the greatness that went unseen while the closeness was assumed. Let the noticing widen what you already have, rather than replacing it with a stiffer, more careful distance.
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.