Out of arguments, Arjuna lets his body ask what his words no longer can.
After the vision that swallowed every world, Arjuna bows to the ground and begs to be forgiven the way a father, a friend, and a lover forgive; the terror does not erase the bond, it drives him back into it.
So I bow low and lay my whole body flat before you, praiseworthy Lord, and beg for your grace. As a father bears with his son, a friend with his friend, a lover with the one he loves, please bear with me.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
The cosmic vision has overwhelmed you, and there is nothing left to argue. You have already confessed. What remains is not one more sentence but a final gesture: put your whole body on the ground and ask, simply, to be forgiven.
The teaching
You bow, you lay your body flat on the earth, and you ask for grace. This is not a formality performed before your real words; it is what your words have become, now that argument has run out. You call Krishna the Lord and the ruler worthy of all praise, and that naming is the whole reason you must beg rather than demand: the one you treated as an ordinary friend has turned out to be the Lord of every world. And yet you do not ask this Lord for mercy the way a stranger might ask a judge. You reach instead for the three closest bonds the human heart knows: as a father bears with his son, as a friend bears with his friend, as a lover bears with the one loved, so you ask to be borne with. The word you use, sodhum, means more than tolerate; every source that comments here reads it as full forgiveness, the kind that does not even keep a private tally of the wrong. And the plea only works because it runs both ways. You do not merely observe that fathers love sons in general. You lean on the fact that you yourself are dear to Krishna, so this is not a stranger's goodwill you are asking for, but the response owed inside a bond that has always existed. Here, honestly, the record itself has a gap. Of the six voices ordinarily gathered around this chapter, two, Madhva and Abhinavagupta, left no comment on this exact verse. Nothing is invented in their names to fill that silence; what can be offered instead is a clearly labeled sense of where their broader positions might extend, never mistaken for their own word.
The doubt that rises
Does the forgiveness you are asking for require you to have changed, or does love simply not keep that kind of account? And if two acaryas who speak everywhere else in this chapter fall silent exactly here, what does that silence itself teach about the limits of what any commentary can finally say?
Where the paths divide
Where the source stays close to the verse's own words.
What survives from Shankara here is philological rather than doctrinal. He confirms the three bonds in their given order and reads sodhum as carrying the sense of forgiveness rather than mere endurance, and he lets the plea stand in its own devotional register without extending it into an argument about how the terrifying form and the familiar friend are ultimately not two.
Where the bond between Lord and soul is always personal and mutual.
Ramanuja's stress falls on reciprocity. Arjuna does not ask a stranger's mercy; he presses that he himself is already dear to Krishna, and that a supremely compassionate Lord who is genuinely loved in return ought therefore to bear everything from his own beloved. The plea works because the intimacy it leans on was never in doubt, only its momentary lapse.
An honest gap, extended only as clearly labeled speculation.
Madhva left no comment on this verse, and nothing offered here should be mistaken for his word. Extended cautiously from his broader teaching that every soul is dependent on the Lord even for the capacity to approach him, one might expect the three human bonds to be read as approximate pointers only, gestures toward an asymmetry no earthly relationship, however loving, can fully hold.
An honest gap, extended only as clearly labeled speculation.
Abhinavagupta left no comment on this exact verse; his surviving commentary breaks off before reaching it. Extended from his general approach, one might expect the prostration and the plea to be read as consciousness recognizing itself, fear and intimacy both arising within the one awareness that Arjuna and the vision he beheld were never, in the end, two things.
Where the vision gathers up intimacy rather than replacing it.
Sridhara reads the three bonds as one tender whole rather than a ranked choice among them, and notices something particular: dazzled by a sovereignty beyond all measure, Arjuna does not reach for the language of a servant before a master. He reaches back for friendship, the ordinary warmth in which he has actually known Krishna all along, as though the terror only threw him more surely into the bond he already had.
Where restraint in the source is itself worth reading.
What is preserved from Madhusudana is a close, deliberately spare paraphrase: the plea's plain sense confirmed, sodhum read as forgiveness, and nothing more added. Read against his usual precision elsewhere, the brevity looks deliberate, letting this hinge between terror and restored intimacy stand on its own without further doctrinal scaffolding.
All six angles agree that the plea is real and that it leans on genuine intimacy. Where they part, and where two of them are honestly silent, is on what finally grounds the forgiveness being asked for: a shared, reciprocal love; a radical dependence that makes the human bonds only approximate; or a recognition in which asker and answerer were never, underneath, two. This page does not close that gap, and where the record itself is silent, neither should any confident answer be manufactured to fill it.
A question to carry
The next time you bring a real fault to someone you love, do you bring it as a case to be argued down, or as Arjuna brings his, laid flat on the ground, trusting the very closeness that let you falter is the closeness that will forgive you?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
So bring your own lapse the way Arjuna brings his: not weighed out before a judge, but laid down before the one who already loves you, and let it be received the way a father receives a child's carelessness, not a debt to be settled but the overflow of a nearness that was never in question.
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 confession that follows the fearsome vision reaches its close here, as Arjuna's apology becomes full bodily surrender and a direct plea for the Lord's grace.
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.
Out of arguments after the vision, Arjuna bows and lays his whole body flat on the ground; the bow is not a gesture before the words, it is the words made flesh.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
Arjuna closes his long apology with total physical surrender: he bows, lays his body flat on the ground, and prostrates himself before Krishna. The bow is not a gesture that precedes the words; having run out of arguments after the overwhelming vision, his body itself becomes the plea, and he begs for the Lord's grace and pleasure.
He names Krishna as the Lord and the one worthy of all praise, the very reason he must beg rather than presume on an ordinary friendship.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
He addresses Krishna with titles that explain why he must beg rather than demand: the Lord, the ruler, the one worthy of the praise of all. The being he had treated as an ordinary friend and companion has turned out to be the Lord of all worlds, and this recognition is the very heart of his humility.
The plea rests on three bonds read as one: as father, friend, and lover bear with those they love, so Krishna is asked to bear with Arjuna, a forgiveness so complete it does not even count the wrong as a wrong.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
The center of the plea is the three relational bonds read as one appeal: as a father bears with and forgives a son, a friend bears with a friend, and a lover bears with the one loved, so Krishna should bear with Arjuna. The verb sodhum, to bear or endure, is read by every source that comments here as carrying the sense of full forgiveness, not grudging tolerance.
The appeal works only because it is mutual; Arjuna is already dear to Krishna, so this is not a stranger's mercy he seeks but the response owed inside an existing bond.
Across Viśiṣṭādvaita, AdvaitaRāmānuja · ŚaṅkaraIn Rāmānuja and Śaṅkara’s words
Crucially, the appeal only works because the love runs both ways. Arjuna does not merely note that fathers love sons in general; he leans on the fact that he himself is already dear to Krishna, so the plea is addressed to an existing bond, not extended to a stranger's mercy.
Where two of the six regular voices, Madhva and Abhinavagupta, left no comment on this verse, that silence is reported honestly rather than filled with invented certainty.
Across Dvaita, Kashmir ŚaivaMadhva · AbhinavaguptaIn Madhva and Abhinavagupta’s words
For two of the six acaryas ordinarily gathered in this commentary, Madhva and Abhinavagupta, no comment on this verse survives; this is an honest gap in the record rather than a doctrinal silence with meaning, and any extension of their views here is clearly a modern extrapolation, not their own word.
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 stresses that the appeal only functions because it is mutual: Arjuna is already dear to Krishna, so the plea is made inside an existing, personal bond rather than extended toward a stranger's mercy, consistent with Vishishtadvaita's picture of a relationship between Lord and soul that is always sustained and reciprocal.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva left no comment on this verse; nothing here is his own word. On a Dvaita reading extended from his broader position, one would expect the three human bonds to be read as approximate pointers only, since the soul's dependence on the Lord for the very capacity to approach him is an asymmetry no human relationship, however loving, fully captures.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara reads all three bonds as one tender whole rather than choosing among them, and notices that Arjuna, dazzled by sovereignty beyond measure, reaches back not for the language of a servant but for friendship, the register in which he has actually known Krishna all along; the universal form gathers up the human bond rather than requiring it to be renounced.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
What is preserved from Madhusudana is a close, deliberately spare paraphrase, confirming the plain sense of the plea and the forgiveness carried in sodhum without extending into a technical philosophical distinction, letting the verse's hinge between terror and restored intimacy stand on its own without further doctrinal framing.
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
Notice what you are actually asking for the next time you bring a fault to someone you love: not a verdict weighed and reluctantly set aside, but the kind of bearing-with that does not even tally the wrong as a wrong. Arjuna does not ask Krishna to overlook a ledger; he asks to be received the way a father receives a child's carelessness, as the overflow of closeness rather than a debt. Try, once, bringing your own lapse that way, not as a case to be argued but as a closeness to be trusted.
So bring your own fault the way Arjuna brings his: not weighed out before a judge, but laid down before the one who already loves you, trusting that the very closeness which let you falter is the closeness that forgives you.
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 closes his long apology with total physical surrender: he bows, lays his body flat on the ground, and prostrates himself before Krishna. The bow is not a gesture that precedes the words; having run out of arguments after the overwhelming vision, his body itself becomes the plea, and he begs for the Lord's grace and pleasure.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
He addresses Krishna with titles that explain why he must beg rather than demand: the Lord, the ruler, the one worthy of the praise of all. The being he had treated as an ordinary friend and companion has turned out to be the Lord of all worlds, and this recognition is the very heart of his humility.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The center of the plea is the three relational bonds read as one appeal: as a father bears with and forgives a son, a friend bears with a friend, and a lover bears with the one loved, so Krishna should bear with Arjuna. The verb sodhum, to bear or endure, is read by every source that comments here as carrying the sense of full forgiveness, not grudging tolerance.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Crucially, the appeal only works because the love runs both ways. Arjuna does not merely note that fathers love sons in general; he leans on the fact that he himself is already dear to Krishna, so the plea is addressed to an existing bond, not extended to a stranger's mercy.
Rāmānujācārya · Śaṅkarācārya
For two of the six acaryas ordinarily gathered in this commentary, Madhva and Abhinavagupta, no comment on this verse survives; this is an honest gap in the record rather than a doctrinal silence with meaning, and any extension of their views here is clearly a modern extrapolation, not their own word.
Madhvācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
What survives from Shankara is philological confirmation rather than developed doctrine: he confirms the three bonds in order and reads sodhum as full forgiveness, letting the plea stand in its own devotional register without folding it into an argument about the ultimate identity of the terrifying form and the familiar friend.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja stresses that the appeal only functions because it is mutual: Arjuna is already dear to Krishna, so the plea is made inside an existing, personal bond rather than extended toward a stranger's mercy, consistent with Vishishtadvaita's picture of a relationship between Lord and soul that is always sustained and reciprocal.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva left no comment on this verse; nothing here is his own word. On a Dvaita reading extended from his broader position, one would expect the three human bonds to be read as approximate pointers only, since the soul's dependence on the Lord for the very capacity to approach him is an asymmetry no human relationship, however loving, fully captures.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta left no comment on this verse; his surviving Gita commentary is fragmentary at this exact point. On a Kashmir Shaiva reading extended from his general approach, one would expect the prostration and forgiveness to be read as consciousness recognizing itself, the fear and the intimacy both appearing within the one awareness that is never finally other than what it beholds.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara reads all three bonds as one tender whole rather than choosing among them, and notices that Arjuna, dazzled by sovereignty beyond measure, reaches back not for the language of a servant but for friendship, the register in which he has actually known Krishna all along; the universal form gathers up the human bond rather than requiring it to be renounced.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
What is preserved from Madhusudana is a close, deliberately spare paraphrase, confirming the plain sense of the plea and the forgiveness carried in sodhum without extending into a technical philosophical distinction, letting the verse's hinge between terror and restored intimacy stand on its own without further doctrinal framing.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If I have genuinely wronged someone, why would love excuse it rather than simply require a real apology and real change?
The verse does not skip the apology; the whole speech leading up to this line is Arjuna's confession, spoken from prostration. What the three bonds add is not a way around owning the fault but the ground on which forgiveness becomes possible at all: love that has already been given does not wait for the ledger to balance before it bears with you.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
The appeal works because it is mutual, not because the wrong is minimized. Ramanuja's stress on Arjuna being dear to Krishna is not an excuse offered instead of an apology; it is the reason the apology, once genuinely made, can be received rather than merely tolerated.
Rāmānujācārya
Where a source is honestly silent, as with Madhva and Abhinavagupta at this exact line, the honest answer is that their traditions elsewhere ground forgiveness differently, in just dependence or in recognition, but neither view was actually recorded here, and neither should be presented as though it settled the question.
Madhvācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Contemplation
Notice what you are actually asking for the next time you bring a fault to someone you love: not a verdict weighed and reluctantly set aside, but the kind of bearing-with that does not even tally the wrong as a wrong. Arjuna does not ask Krishna to overlook a ledger; he asks to be received the way a father receives a child's carelessness, as the overflow of closeness rather than a debt. Try, once, bringing your own lapse that way, not as a case to be argued but as a closeness to be trusted.
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.