Each strand of your nature ties you to a different rope, and the rope you feel pulling is the one now strongest.
It is tempting to hear this as a simple sorting, one guna for happiness, one for action, one for neglect. It is really a description of grip: how a single binding force takes three different shapes, and the good-feeling shape still counts as a tie.
Sattva ties you to happiness, and rajas ties you to action, Arjuna. Tamas, veiling knowledge, ties you instead to carelessness.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Krishna has been describing the three gunas one at a time, how each arises and what marks its presence. Here he states, in one compact verse, exactly what each one fastens you to, tightening the chapter's argument into a single mechanism before he turns, later, to how a person might rise above all three.
The teaching
A single binding force runs through this verse, taking three different shapes. Sattva, the strand of clarity, ties you to happiness. Rajas, the strand of restless energy, ties you to action. Both attach directly, in one step: the guna is present, and its effect follows. Tamas, the strand of dullness, needs two steps. It first veils the very clarity that sattva had opened, covering over your discernment of what should and should not be done. Only once that sight is covered does tamas tie you to carelessness, and carelessness here has an exact sense: it is the leaving undone of what has already become your duty. Each strand, moreover, works with an overpowering force. Sattva can turn you toward happiness even when real causes for grief are present. Rajas can pull you into action even when the conditions for contentment are already at hand. Tamas can veil knowledge even as it is freshly rising, say through the words of someone wise sitting in front of you, and press you instead into simple heedlessness, indolence, or heavy sleep. None of this describes gunas taking turns arriving from outside you. All three are read as present together, at every moment; what changes is only which one currently has the upper hand, a dominance won by holding the other two down rather than by their absence.
The doubt that rises
If sattva's happiness still counts as a tie, is any state truly free of the gunas' grip, or does even the most pleasant, most lucid condition keep you bound in some quieter way?
Where the paths divide
Read as a spare statement of mechanism.
Shankara keeps close to the grammar: one verb, carried silently across all three clauses, and tamas alone requiring a prior veiling before its binding can take hold. He does not linger here; this verse sets up the next one's account of when and how a guna actually comes to dominate, so its role in his reading is to state the mechanism cleanly before that fuller account arrives.
Read through the puzzle of simultaneous, opposed qualities.
Ramanuja names a distinct door of attachment for each guna, and stresses that goodness, passion, and darkness are all simultaneously present in the very shape nature has taken as this body. That simultaneity raises, for him, the real question: how can co-present qualities produce effects that plainly work against each other. He states the puzzle and hands its resolution to what Krishna says next.
Read honestly, as a gap in the surviving record.
What remains of Madhva's own comment on this verse is a single lemma-clause naming where Krishna's speech resumes, nothing more. This matches the terseness of his surviving remarks across this part of the chapter, where on some verses no comment survives at all. No developed Dvaita account of the gunas' mechanism can honestly be drawn from this verse; at most, one can note, as a clearly labeled extension rather than a finding, that Madhva's wider theology of radical dependence would likely read even the gunas' binding power as itself sustained by the Lord's will.
Read through mutual suppression among the strands.
The surviving fragment describes each guna as growing precisely by holding down the other two, sattva by suppressing rajas and tamas, and so on for each, citing what reads as a settled maxim to this effect. The picture is dynamic, three forces in constant contest, and whichever currently wins determines what you are tied to in that moment. The fragment stops at this mechanism; the fuller Kashmir Shaiva language of consciousness contracting into narrower states is not itself present in what survives here, and should be read as an extension rather than as this verse's own extant commentary.
Read through each strand's overpowering vigour.
Sridhara frames the whole verse as an account of overriding strength: sattva turns you toward happiness even against real causes for grief, rajas pulls you into action even where contentment was already available, and tamas veils knowledge even as it is actively dawning through the words of the wise, pressing you instead into heedlessness and its kin, indolence and heavy sleep. Whichever strand is strongest simply overrides what the others would have produced.
Read for its argumentative economy.
Taken as a ranking device within a larger sequence, this verse specifies, among effects already introduced earlier in the chapter, which effect each strand is currently strongest in producing. The attention falls on how one verb and one subject carry silently across three clauses, an economy of statement that mirrors the economy of cause: one dominant strand, one governing effect, nothing wasted in the grammar or in the psychology it describes.
All six readings agree on the plain mechanism: three strands, three ties, tamas needing a prior veil. They part on how far to press it. Is this verse complete in itself, or does it lean entirely on what follows for its real weight? Is the mutual suppression among the strands a neutral, almost mechanical fact, or, as a further Kashmir Shaiva extension beyond what survives here might suggest, itself a form of consciousness narrowing into contracted states? And for Dvaita, where a developed reading is honestly absent at this verse, what would it mean to hold that gap rather than paper over it with invented certainty? This page holds the gap open rather than closing it.
A question to carry
Right now, without judging it, which rope do you feel pulling, toward a pleasant settled state, toward some action you feel driven to finish, or toward quietly letting something slide that you know is yours to do?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
Notice the rope that has hold of you today, and let that plain noticing be enough, for now, without demanding that it also set you free.
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.
Krishna has spent this chapter naming the three gunas and how each arises; here he states, in the plainest terms yet, exactly what each one fastens you to.
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 same binding verb runs through all three clauses; only the object of the tie changes from happiness, to action, to carelessness.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
One verb runs through the whole verse: each guna 'ties' or 'yokes' the embodied self to its own characteristic effect. Sattva ties one to happiness, rajas to action, and this single binding force, not three separate forces, is what the commentators keep returning to as the verse's core claim.
Tamas works in two steps, not one: first it veils your clarity, and only then does its carelessness take hold.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
Tamas alone works in two steps rather than one. Before it can bind a person to carelessness, it must first veil the clarity or knowledge that would otherwise be present. Sattva and rajas attach directly to their effects; tamas has to darken the light of discernment first, and only then does its heedlessness take hold.
Carelessness has a precise meaning here, the leaving undone of what has already become yours to do, not a vague mood.
Across AdvaitaŚaṅkara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara and Madhusūdana’s words
Carelessness, pramada, is given a concrete definition rather than left as a vague mood: it is the leaving undone of what has already become one's duty to do. This is a specific failure of action, the neglect of a task now owed, not a generalized dullness of temperament.
Each strand does its work with an overpowering force, eclipsing even the conditions that would normally produce a different result.
Across Bhakti, Advaita, Kashmir ŚaivaŚrīdhara · Madhusūdana · AbhinavaguptaIn Śrīdhara, Madhusūdana, and 1 others’ words
Several readings stress that each guna does its work with an overpowering vigour, eclipsing whatever does not belong to it: sattva overrides even present causes of sorrow, rajas overrides even present causes of happiness, and tamas overrides even knowledge that is freshly arising through the company of the wise.
All three strands are present in you at every moment; what shifts is which one currently holds down the other two.
Across Viśiṣṭādvaita, Kashmir ŚaivaRāmānuja · AbhinavaguptaIn Rāmānuja and Abhinavagupta’s words
All three gunas are read as present in the embodied self at every moment, not taking turns showing up from nowhere. What changes, and what this verse is actually describing, is which one currently has the upper hand, a dominance won by holding down the other two rather than by their simple absence.
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 names a distinct 'door' of attachment for each guna, and stresses that all three are simultaneously present in the very form nature has taken as this body. His real interest is the puzzle that follows: how can co-present qualities produce mutually contradictory effects, a question he explicitly defers to Krishna's next words rather than resolving within this verse.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva's extant comment on this verse is a bare lemma, 'He speaks with the word sattva,' consistent with the terseness of his surviving remarks across this stretch of chapter fourteen (he offers no comment at all on 14.6 and 14.10). No developed Dvaita reading of the mechanism survives at this verse; what can honestly be offered is only a labeled extrapolation, that a fuller Dvaita account would likely read even the gunas' binding power as itself dependent on and sustained by the Lord's will, not an independent finding drawn from Madhva's own words here.
Shaiva, in their fuller words
Abhinavagupta's surviving fragment describes the gunas as mutually suppressive forces: each grows precisely by holding down the other two, citing what reads as a settled maxim to this effect. The extant comment stops at this mechanism and does not itself extend into the fuller Kashmir Shaiva vocabulary of contraction and recognition; any framing of guna-dominance as a contraction of consciousness's own freedom is a labeled extension beyond what this verse's surviving commentary states.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara frames the verse as an account of overpowering vigour: each guna's characteristic effect is strong enough to override even the conditions that would normally produce a different effect, sattva overriding present grief, rajas overriding present happiness, tamas overriding knowledge freshly dawning through the company of the wise. He adds that the verse's 'also' extends tamas's grip to indolence as well as heedlessness.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Read for its argumentative structure, Madhusudana's comment treats the verse as a ranking device within a larger sequence: it specifies, among effects already named, which effect each guna is currently strongest in producing. His attention to the carried-over verbs and subjects across all three clauses turns the verse into a lesson in economy of statement matching an economy of cause: one dominant strand, one governing effect, no waste in either the grammar or the psychology.
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, without judgment, which of the three ropes has hold of you right now: are you leaning toward a pleasant, settled state, toward some action you feel pulled to complete, or toward simply letting something slide that you know is yours to do? Naming the rope does not yet loosen it, but it stops you from mistaking the guna's pull for your own considered choice.
So notice, gently and without alarm, which rope has hold of you just now, and let the noticing itself be the first loosening.
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
ne verb runs through the whole verse: each guna 'ties' or 'yokes' the embodied self to its own characteristic effect. Sattva ties one to happiness, rajas to action, and this single binding force, not three separate forces, is what the commentators keep returning to as the verse's core claim.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Tamas alone works in two steps rather than one. Before it can bind a person to carelessness, it must first veil the clarity or knowledge that would otherwise be present. Sattva and rajas attach directly to their effects; tamas has to darken the light of discernment first, and only then does its heedlessness take hold.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Carelessness, pramada, is given a concrete definition rather than left as a vague mood: it is the leaving undone of what has already become one's duty to do. This is a specific failure of action, the neglect of a task now owed, not a generalized dullness of temperament.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Several readings stress that each guna does its work with an overpowering vigour, eclipsing whatever does not belong to it: sattva overrides even present causes of sorrow, rajas overrides even present causes of happiness, and tamas overrides even knowledge that is freshly arising through the company of the wise.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
All three gunas are read as present in the embodied self at every moment, not taking turns showing up from nowhere. What changes, and what this verse is actually describing, is which one currently has the upper hand, a dominance won by holding down the other two rather than by their simple absence.
Rāmānujācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara treats the verse as a compact statement of mechanism: one carried verb, three bindings, with tamas singled out for its two-step veil-then-bind structure. He resists elaboration here, using 14.9 chiefly to set up the following verse's account of when and how the gunas actually dominate one another, rather than treating this verse as a destination in itself.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja names a distinct 'door' of attachment for each guna, and stresses that all three are simultaneously present in the very form nature has taken as this body. His real interest is the puzzle that follows: how can co-present qualities produce mutually contradictory effects, a question he explicitly defers to Krishna's next words rather than resolving within this verse.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva's extant comment on this verse is a bare lemma, 'He speaks with the word sattva,' consistent with the terseness of his surviving remarks across this stretch of chapter fourteen (he offers no comment at all on 14.6 and 14.10). No developed Dvaita reading of the mechanism survives at this verse; what can honestly be offered is only a labeled extrapolation, that a fuller Dvaita account would likely read even the gunas' binding power as itself dependent on and sustained by the Lord's will, not an independent finding drawn from Madhva's own words here.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta's surviving fragment describes the gunas as mutually suppressive forces: each grows precisely by holding down the other two, citing what reads as a settled maxim to this effect. The extant comment stops at this mechanism and does not itself extend into the fuller Kashmir Shaiva vocabulary of contraction and recognition; any framing of guna-dominance as a contraction of consciousness's own freedom is a labeled extension beyond what this verse's surviving commentary states.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara frames the verse as an account of overpowering vigour: each guna's characteristic effect is strong enough to override even the conditions that would normally produce a different effect, sattva overriding present grief, rajas overriding present happiness, tamas overriding knowledge freshly dawning through the company of the wise. He adds that the verse's 'also' extends tamas's grip to indolence as well as heedlessness.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Read for its argumentative structure, Madhusudana's comment treats the verse as a ranking device within a larger sequence: it specifies, among effects already named, which effect each guna is currently strongest in producing. His attention to the carried-over verbs and subjects across all three clauses turns the verse into a lesson in economy of statement matching an economy of cause: one dominant strand, one governing effect, no waste in either the grammar or the psychology.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If sattva's happiness still counts as a binding, is there any state I can safely rest in, or does every guna, even the good one, keep me tied down?
The verse itself is not condemning happiness or clarity; it is naming the mechanism by which each guna, including sattva, attaches a person to its own effect. Sattva's tie is lighter and more luminous than the other two, but the text still calls it a tie.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
What binds is not the pleasant state in itself but the grip of attachment riding along with it; the danger named here is subtler than obvious craving, which is exactly why the verse bothers to mention sattva's binding at all rather than passing over it in silence.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
The chapter does not leave you here. Later verses describe rising beyond all three gunas altogether, so this verse is a diagnosis of the present condition, not a claim that no further freedom is possible; it tells you where you presently stand, not where you must remain.
Rāmānujācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Contemplation
Notice, without judgment, which of the three ropes has hold of you right now: are you leaning toward a pleasant, settled state, toward some action you feel pulled to complete, or toward simply letting something slide that you know is yours to do? Naming the rope does not yet loosen it, but it stops you from mistaking the guna's pull for your own considered choice.
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.