What is to be known cannot be called existent or non-existent, and knowing it is the deathless itself.
Krishna turns from knowledge to its one object, and names the reward before the description: know this, and death is crossed. What he names next refuses the ordinary either-or of is and is not.
Now I will tell you what is truly worth knowing, since knowing it ends death itself. It is the beginningless, supreme Brahman, and no ordinary word can call it either existent or non-existent.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
For several verses Krishna has described knowledge itself, its marks and its opposite. Now the turn comes to the object of that knowledge, the one thing actually worth knowing, and he opens the description with a promise: know this, and you cross into the deathless. What follows here will unfold across several more verses.
The teaching
Krishna names what is to be known before he describes it in full: the beginningless, supreme Brahman. Beginningless means nothing came before it, nothing it arose from. Supreme means nothing stands above it. It is the vast ground from which everything springs, in which everything rests, into which everything eventually returns, while it itself stays exactly as it was at the beginning, the middle, and the end. Know it, and you reach the deathless: not a new immortality handed to you as a reward, but the undoing of an old mistake, the mistake of taking yourself to be the perishable body you wear. You were always the unborn self underneath that mistake. Once the supreme is truly known, the mistake simply falls away. Then comes the line that will not let you settle the question either way: it is not called existent, and it is not called non-existent. This is not a verdict that nothing is there. It is a statement about what words can do. 'Existent' names whatever an affirming act of cognition can fix upon; 'non-existent' names whatever a denial can fix upon. Both depend on the senses and the ordinary reach of the mind, and Brahman lies past both, so neither word settles on it. A word can only convey its object through kind, through action, through quality, or through relation, and Brahman offers none of the four: no kind, being one without a second; no quality, being free of qualities; no action, being at rest; no relation, being the one Self rather than an object set against something else. Every channel a word could use is closed, so even 'existent' finds nothing to hold on to. This is not the poverty of the teaching. It is the exact shape of what is being pointed at.
The doubt that rises
If Brahman cannot rightly be called existent or non-existent, has anything real been said, or have the words simply been taken away without giving anything back in their place?
Where the paths divide
Reading the phrase as one unbroken description, cleared of every particular mark.
Keep 'the beginningless supreme Brahman' as a single, unbroken description. Do not split it into 'beginningless' plus 'having Me as the supreme.' Brahman is shown here by the wholesale clearing away of every distinguishing mark, culminating in the denial of both existence and non-existence; to attach a special personal power to it in the same breath would undo that very method. The grammatical fullness of the word for beginningless does its work in the meter, not in the meaning.
An honest gap: no secure comment from this acarya survives for this exact verse.
The material filed for this verse under Ramanuja's name turns out, on inspection, to belong to the following verse's description of hands and eyes and faces everywhere, not to this verse's declaration that Brahman is neither being nor non-being. Rather than invent a confident reading in his voice, this angle is left honestly open. What can be said is only that his broader method, visible elsewhere in his commentary, reads such negations as ruling out inadequate categories rather than ruling out a personal ground; that is offered as a marked extrapolation, not a report of what he says here.
Reading each word as carrying real, specific weight.
This verse fulfills two promises made earlier in the chapter: to say who the Lord is, and to say what his power is. 'Supreme Brahman' answers the first. 'Beginningless' and what follows answers the second, and the grammatical fullness of that word is not idle. It means freedom from a body, senses, qualities, and activities that themselves have a beginning, a specific claim the bare word 'beginningless' would not carry alone. And the Supreme named here is Hari himself, with no higher or lower among his own forms.
A brief, cross-referential note, reported without inflating it into a full doctrine.
What survives of comment on this verse is short: it notes that the phrase supports an inference toward Brahman's true form and its oneness with the awareness every school already speaks of, and it declines to repeat what was explained earlier in the chapter. A fuller reading, treating the denial of being and non-being as pointing toward pure recognitive awareness, would extend this system consistently, but it is not what the surviving fragment itself develops, and it is marked here as an extension rather than a report.
Holding two parsings together rather than forcing one.
Let both readings stand. Either the phrase is one whole, 'the beginningless supreme Brahman,' or it splits so that 'having Me,' that is Vishnu, 'as supreme' names the Lord's own undivided form, which is itself Brahman. Either way, being and non-being are both denied of it, not because it fails to exist, but because it cannot be made the object of either an affirming or a denying act of cognition.
Reading the verse as a working theory of how language reaches, or fails to reach, its object.
A word only conveys meaning through one of four channels: kind, action, quality, or relation. Brahman offers none of these, so it cannot be reached by direct predication at all. It can only be taught by negation, by clearing away everything it is not, until what remains is the bare, unconditioned reality that is the true Self. On this reading the verse is a precise statement about the limits of description, not a mystery for its own sake.
The six readings agree that ordinary words fail to capture Brahman here, and they agree that this failure is not absence. They part on how much the phrase itself gives you beyond that failure: whether it is one whole description with every mark stripped away, or a phrase that still names a personal highest term, and, honestly, on whether a secure Vishishtadvaita reading of this exact verse survives at all in the material available. None of this is resolved here, and it does not need to be resolved for the verse to do its work.
A question to carry
When you stop trying to decide whether the ground of your own existence is a thing that is or a thing that is not, what does the effort of deciding leave behind?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
May the two words this verse refuses become, for you, not a wall but a doorway: rest for a moment past the need to call anything either existent or non-existent, and find that what remains was never in question at all.
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.
Having just described knowledge itself, Krishna now opens, with this verse, the long account of the knowable that the following verses will unfold in detail.
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.
Krishna names the fruit, the deathless, before the description, so the listener leans in before a single defining word is spoken.
Across Advaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Madhva · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Madhva, and 2 others’ words
Krishna has just finished describing knowledge itself; here he turns to its object and announces it directly: I shall now declare what is to be known. The commentators note that he opens with the fruit of this knowledge before its content, so that the listener leans in, and that this single verse opens a longer account, roughly six verses, unfolding what the knowable actually is.
The immortality promised is not new territory gained; it is the old mistake of taking yourself for the perishable body, quietly undone.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
The fruit of knowing the knowable is named as the deathless: knowing it, one attains immortality. This is read not as gaining something new but as recognizing what was already true. Having mistaken oneself for the perishable body, one imagined oneself born and dying; once the supreme is truly known, that mistake falls away and one's own deathless nature is simply recognized.
What is to be known has no origin and nothing above it: the ground from which all things rise, in which they rest, into which they return, unchanged throughout.
Across Advaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Madhva · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Madhva, and 1 others’ words
What is to be known is named the beginningless, supreme Brahman. Beginningless means it has no origin, nothing prior from which it arose. Supreme means unsurpassed, with nothing standing higher. It is read as the vast ground from which everything arises, in which everything rests, and into which everything returns, while it itself remains unchanged throughout.
Neither 'it is' nor 'it is not' can be said of it rightly, because it lies past the senses and the mind that those words are built to serve.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
The verse then withholds two words from Brahman at once: it is not called existent, and it is not called non-existent. Every commentator on file agrees this is not a claim that Brahman fails to exist. It is a claim about the limits of language: 'existent' marks what an affirming act of cognition can fix upon, 'non-existent' marks what a denial can fix upon, and Brahman, lying past the senses and the ordinary workings of the mind, is the object of neither.
Trace how any word grips its object, by kind, by act, by quality, by relation, and this offers none of the four; the silence that follows is fullness, not absence.
Across AdvaitaŚaṅkara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara and Madhusūdana’s words
Some of the commentators explain this failure of language through a shared analysis of how any word works at all: a word reaches its object only through kind, action, quality, or relation. Brahman has no kind, being one without a second; no quality, being free of qualities; no action, being at peace; and no relation, being the one Self rather than an object set against something else. Every avenue a word could use is absent, so even the word 'existent' finds nothing to grip.
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
No secure extract of Ramanuja's own comment on this exact verse survives in the material on file for 13.13; the passage filed under his name here belongs, on inspection, to the following verse's description of Brahman's all-pervading form. Rather than invent a confident Vishishtadvaita reading in his voice, this divergence is left as an honest gap, noting only that his broader method elsewhere reads such negations as denying inadequate categories rather than denying a personal ground.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva reads the verse as fulfilling two distinct promises made earlier in the chapter, who the Lord is and what his power is, with 'supreme Brahman' answering the first and 'beginningless' and what follows answering the second. He gives the grammatical form of 'beginningless' real, specific force: freedom from a body, senses, qualities, and activities that themselves have a beginning, not a mere repetition of the bare word. He is emphatic that this Brahman is Hari, with no higher and lower among his own forms.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara allows two readings to stand side by side without forcing a choice: the phrase as one unbroken description, or split so that 'having Me,' that is Vishnu, 'as supreme' names the Lord's own undivided form, which is itself Brahman. On either reading, being and non-being are both denied of it because it cannot be made the object of either an affirming or a denying act of cognition, not because it fails to exist.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Madhusudana's gloss functions as a working theory of reference: a word can only convey meaning through kind, action, quality, or relation, and since Brahman possesses none of these, it cannot be conveyed by direct predication at all, only taught by systematic negation until what remains is the bare, unconditioned reality that is the true Self. On this reading the verse is less a metaphysical riddle than a precise statement about the limits of any descriptive language whatsoever.
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 the two words this verse refuses: not existent, not non-existent. Notice how quickly the mind wants to settle the question one way or the other, and notice that the verse will not let it. Let that refusal itself become the object of attention, not as a puzzle to solve but as a pointer toward whatever in you is doing the noticing, prior to any word you could attach to it.
May you rest for a moment in the space these two refused words open, and find there not an emptiness but the one ground that never needed a name to be real.
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
rishna has just finished describing knowledge itself; here he turns to its object and announces it directly: I shall now declare what is to be known. The commentators note that he opens with the fruit of this knowledge before its content, so that the listener leans in, and that this single verse opens a longer account, roughly six verses, unfolding what the knowable actually is.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The fruit of knowing the knowable is named as the deathless: knowing it, one attains immortality. This is read not as gaining something new but as recognizing what was already true. Having mistaken oneself for the perishable body, one imagined oneself born and dying; once the supreme is truly known, that mistake falls away and one's own deathless nature is simply recognized.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
What is to be known is named the beginningless, supreme Brahman. Beginningless means it has no origin, nothing prior from which it arose. Supreme means unsurpassed, with nothing standing higher. It is read as the vast ground from which everything arises, in which everything rests, and into which everything returns, while it itself remains unchanged throughout.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
The verse then withholds two words from Brahman at once: it is not called existent, and it is not called non-existent. Every commentator on file agrees this is not a claim that Brahman fails to exist. It is a claim about the limits of language: 'existent' marks what an affirming act of cognition can fix upon, 'non-existent' marks what a denial can fix upon, and Brahman, lying past the senses and the ordinary workings of the mind, is the object of neither.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Some of the commentators explain this failure of language through a shared analysis of how any word works at all: a word reaches its object only through kind, action, quality, or relation. Brahman has no kind, being one without a second; no quality, being free of qualities; no action, being at peace; and no relation, being the one Self rather than an object set against something else. Every avenue a word could use is absent, so even the word 'existent' finds nothing to grip.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara reads 'beginningless supreme Brahman' as a single, unbroken description and explicitly declines to split it into 'beginningless' plus 'having Me as the supreme.' Brahman is being shown here precisely by the wholesale clearing away of every particular mark, culminating in the denial of both being and non-being; to attach a distinguishing personal power at the same moment would work against that very method. The extra grammatical form in the word for beginningless is read as filling the meter, not adding content.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
No secure extract of Ramanuja's own comment on this exact verse survives in the material on file for 13.13; the passage filed under his name here belongs, on inspection, to the following verse's description of Brahman's all-pervading form. Rather than invent a confident Vishishtadvaita reading in his voice, this divergence is left as an honest gap, noting only that his broader method elsewhere reads such negations as denying inadequate categories rather than denying a personal ground.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva reads the verse as fulfilling two distinct promises made earlier in the chapter, who the Lord is and what his power is, with 'supreme Brahman' answering the first and 'beginningless' and what follows answering the second. He gives the grammatical form of 'beginningless' real, specific force: freedom from a body, senses, qualities, and activities that themselves have a beginning, not a mere repetition of the bare word. He is emphatic that this Brahman is Hari, with no higher and lower among his own forms.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
What survives of Abhinavagupta's comment on this verse is brief and largely a cross-reference: he notes that the phrase confirms an inference toward Brahman's true form and its non-separateness from the awareness every school already speaks of, and declines to repeat explanations given earlier. A fuller Kashmir Saiva reading, treating the denial of being and non-being as pointing toward pure recognitive awareness, would be a conditional extension of his system rather than a report of what this fragment itself says.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara allows two readings to stand side by side without forcing a choice: the phrase as one unbroken description, or split so that 'having Me,' that is Vishnu, 'as supreme' names the Lord's own undivided form, which is itself Brahman. On either reading, being and non-being are both denied of it because it cannot be made the object of either an affirming or a denying act of cognition, not because it fails to exist.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Madhusudana's gloss functions as a working theory of reference: a word can only convey meaning through kind, action, quality, or relation, and since Brahman possesses none of these, it cannot be conveyed by direct predication at all, only taught by systematic negation until what remains is the bare, unconditioned reality that is the true Self. On this reading the verse is less a metaphysical riddle than a precise statement about the limits of any descriptive language whatsoever.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If Brahman is neither existent nor non-existent, has this verse actually told me anything, or has it just taken away my words without giving me anything in return?
The denial is aimed at language, not at reality. Existent marks what an affirming cognition can fix upon; non-existent marks what a denial can fix upon. Brahman lies past the senses and the ordinary workings of the mind that these words rest on, so it is the object of neither, which is a claim about the reach of speech, not a claim that nothing is there.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
You have also been given something positive in the same verse: the knowable is named as the beginningless, supreme Brahman, the ground from which all things rise and into which they return. The withdrawal of ordinary words clears away the expectation that this could be one object among others; what remains unnamed is not absent, only too whole for the box that 'is' and 'is not' would put it in.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhvācārya
Notice too why even careful words fail here on a technical level: a word only reaches its object through kind, action, quality, or relation, and this has none of them to offer as a handle. That failure of every ordinary channel is itself a kind of information, telling you plainly what sort of thing you are dealing with, even before any positive description arrives.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Contemplation
Sit for a moment with the two words this verse refuses: not existent, not non-existent. Notice how quickly the mind wants to settle the question one way or the other, and notice that the verse will not let it. Let that refusal itself become the object of attention, not as a puzzle to solve but as a pointer toward whatever in you is doing the noticing, prior to any word you could attach to it.
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.