Before any teaching begins, the collapse itself must be refused.
This is not yet philosophy. It is Krishna's flat command to a man who has stopped functioning, spoken before a single one of his reasons has been heard in full.
Do not fall into this faintheartedness, Arjuna; it does not suit who you are. Throw off this small weakness of heart and rise, ready for what stands before you.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
The bow has already slipped from Arjuna's hand. Chapter one ended with him sunk into the chariot floor, certain he cannot fight. Krishna now speaks his first words of the entire teaching, and they touch none of Arjuna's reasons yet. They touch only the condition he has fallen into.
The teaching
What has overtaken Arjuna is named directly: klaibya, a loss of nerve, an impotence of will. Krishna does not pause to weigh whether this feeling deserves respect. He simply forbids it, and says it does not fit the man having it. The address that follows, son of Pritha, scorcher of foes, is not ornamental. It recalls a lineage of courage and a record of real victories, holding up who Arjuna has already shown himself to be against who he is being right now. And the weakness itself is called petty, small, trifling, a word that cuts two ways: it shrinks whoever clings to it, and yet it is slight enough, for someone of Arjuna's actual capacity, to simply be set down. The verse closes on one bare imperative. Cast this off. Stand. Nothing here yet claims to explain why the battle must be fought, or what becomes of the self that fights it. That teaching is still to come. This verse only clears space for it to be heard.
The doubt that rises
Is a rebuke this blunt fair to a man in the middle of what looks like a genuine moral crisis? Or is refusing the collapse first, before entertaining a single reason behind it, exactly the right order of operations? And whose voice gets to decide, in a moment like this, whether what you feel is discernment or only fear in a better coat?
Where the paths divide
Read as clearing an obstacle before doctrine can begin.
Shankara's own commentary on this chapter starts several verses later, once Arjuna has finished speaking. Extending his larger frame, this verse still does real work: it removes the confusion of grief and delusion dressed as discernment, so that the discrimination between Self and not-Self, his actual subject, can eventually be heard. The command does not teach. It clears the hearer's ear.
Read as one continuous reproof correcting a wrong estimate.
Ramanuja folds this line into a single rebuke spanning three verses: the dejection is alien to Arjuna, ill-timed, and closes doors both here and hereafter. The Lord, present as Arjuna's own inner guide, is correcting a mistaken sense of what is actually at stake, bodies and outcomes mistaken for the true concern, and calling him back before the mistake can settle into something harder to undo.
Read as the Lord's will withdrawing what it once permitted.
No direct word from Madhva survives on this line, his gloss begins two verses later, but his governing frame of radical dependence suggests a reading: the grief that arose a moment ago arose by the Lord's own permission, and this command withdraws that permission, restoring the dependent self to the action proper to it rather than granting some newfound independence of will.
Read as awareness forgetting, then being recalled to, its own freedom.
Abhinavagupta left no commentary on the Gita, so this is an extension of his tradition's vocabulary rather than his own word. On such an extension, the named impotence is a contraction of consciousness's spontaneous vitality into fearful identification with a threatened body. The summons to rise would not be an order from outside but a recalling of awareness to a vigor it had only, and briefly, forgotten.
Read as an argument folded into the closing name.
Sridhara hears the title scorcher of foes as carrying the whole case: one who has burned down enemies on every field cannot now be conquered by this one inward enemy, a fainting heart. The weakness is called petty for a double reason, it shrinks whoever holds it and yields no real good, yet it is small enough for a man of Arjuna's stature to simply lay down.
Read as foreclosing a plea before it is fully spoken.
Madhusudana reads Krishna as anticipating exactly the objection Arjuna is about to raise in the verses just ahead, that he cannot even hold his bow. The refusal comes first, grounded in Arjuna's own record, valor by birth and valor by deed, held up as evidence that this collapse, whatever its reasons turn out to be, does not actually fit the man now voicing it.
All six readings agree the rebuke lands on a condition rather than an argument. They do not agree on what that means for how the rebuke should be received. Is it purely preparatory, clearing space for a later teaching, or is something already being asked of Arjuna's will right here, a return to a freedom or a dependence he already carries? And does naming a feeling petty ever risk foreclosing a doubt too quickly? The verse gives a command, not an answer to that question, and neither does this page.
A question to carry
The next time your own resolve drains away mid-task and reaches for a kinder name, discretion, sensitivity, prudence, what would it take to look at the collapse plainly, just once, before you accept the name you have given it?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
May what is small in you be seen for what it is, and set down without a long argument. May you stand, ready, before the reasons have even finished arriving.
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 let his bow fall, saying he cannot see any good in the fight. Krishna's very first words meet none of that argument directly; they meet the collapse.
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 rebuke targets a condition, the loss of nerve, not yet any specific belief or argument.
Across Viśiṣṭādvaita, Bhakti, AdvaitaRāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Rāmānuja, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
Every reading treats this as Krishna's flat refusal of a condition, not yet an argument against a position. Klaibya, the impotence or loss of nerve that overtook Arjuna at the end of chapter one, is named and forbidden before any of his reasons are examined. The collapse itself, not any particular belief behind it, is what the verse first addresses.
Naming Arjuna by lineage and record is reproof and reminder at once, calling him back to a self he has lost sight of.
Across Viśiṣṭādvaita, Bhakti, AdvaitaRāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Rāmānuja, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
The rebuke doubles as a reminder of stature. By naming Arjuna in terms of his lineage and his record, son of Pritha, scorcher of foes, Krishna is not merely scolding; he is recalling Arjuna to a self he has momentarily lost sight of. The command to rise leans on who Arjuna already is, not on some new identity being imposed on him.
The weakness is called petty because it shrinks whoever keeps it, and precisely because it is small enough to set down.
Across Bhakti, AdvaitaŚrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śrīdhara and Madhusūdana’s words
The weakness is called petty for a reason that cuts two ways at once: it is a small thing, easily set aside by one of Arjuna's actual capacity, and yet clinging to it makes the person small, yielding no freedom, no honor, nothing of worth. The same word that diagnoses the fault points to how readily it can be released.
The verse ends in bare command, not doctrine, clearing the ground so that real teaching can follow.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
The verse ends in a plain imperative, cast off and rise, with no philosophical argument yet attached to it. Every reading agrees that this bluntness is deliberate: Krishna is not yet teaching a doctrine of the Self, he is clearing an obstacle so that teaching can eventually be heard at all.
No fine name for the collapse, discretion, compassion, fatigue, is allowed to stand unexamined before it is even inspected.
Across Viśiṣṭādvaita, Bhakti, AdvaitaRāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Rāmānuja, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
None of the readings excuse the collapse by calling it compassion or discretion. Whatever fine name Arjuna might give his own hesitation, the verse is read as refusing to let that name stand unexamined, treating the fainting of resolve as a condition to be corrected rather than a position to be debated on its own terms just yet.
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 folds this verse into a single reproof spanning verses one through three: the dejection is alien to Arjuna's true nature, out of season, and closes off both this world's good name and the world to come. The Lord, present within Arjuna as inner guide, corrects a wrong estimate of what is truly at stake, mistaking bodies and outcomes for what matters, and calls him back to right action before that error can settle in.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva's gloss likewise begins later, at verse eleven, so no direct word survives on this line either. On the dependence that governs his whole system, the command to rise would be read as the Lord's own will withdrawing the very permission that had allowed the grief to arise a verse earlier, restoring the dependent self to the action proper to it rather than granting it some new independent resolve.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Madhusudana reads the verse as anticipating and foreclosing Arjuna's plea before it is even voiced in the verses that follow: the refusal of impotence comes first, and only afterward does Arjuna state the case being refused. The grounds are Arjuna's own record, valor by birth and valor by deed, held up against the present collapse as evidence that the fainting does not actually fit the man having it.
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, the next time resolve drains out of you mid-task, whether you are naming that drain something finer than it is, prudence, sensitivity, fatigue that deserves respect. This verse asks you to look once, plainly, at the collapse itself before you dress it in a better word. If it is only a small weakness of heart, it can be set down; you do not need to argue yourself out of every reason first.
So when your own resolve drains away and reaches for a finer name, look at it plainly first. What is small can be set down; then let the standing up come next.
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 reading treats this as Krishna's flat refusal of a condition, not yet an argument against a position. Klaibya, the impotence or loss of nerve that overtook Arjuna at the end of chapter one, is named and forbidden before any of his reasons are examined. The collapse itself, not any particular belief behind it, is what the verse first addresses.
Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The rebuke doubles as a reminder of stature. By naming Arjuna in terms of his lineage and his record, son of Pritha, scorcher of foes, Krishna is not merely scolding; he is recalling Arjuna to a self he has momentarily lost sight of. The command to rise leans on who Arjuna already is, not on some new identity being imposed on him.
Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The weakness is called petty for a reason that cuts two ways at once: it is a small thing, easily set aside by one of Arjuna's actual capacity, and yet clinging to it makes the person small, yielding no freedom, no honor, nothing of worth. The same word that diagnoses the fault points to how readily it can be released.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The verse ends in a plain imperative, cast off and rise, with no philosophical argument yet attached to it. Every reading agrees that this bluntness is deliberate: Krishna is not yet teaching a doctrine of the Self, he is clearing an obstacle so that teaching can eventually be heard at all.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
None of the readings excuse the collapse by calling it compassion or discretion. Whatever fine name Arjuna might give his own hesitation, the verse is read as refusing to let that name stand unexamined, treating the fainting of resolve as a condition to be corrected rather than a position to be debated on its own terms just yet.
Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara's formal commentary does not begin until verse ten, so his direct word on this line is absent. Extending his larger frame, the verse functions as a threshold-clearing: the grief and delusion that pose as discrimination must be set aside before the discernment of Self from not-Self, which is his real subject, can even be introduced. The command removes an obstacle to hearing; it does not itself teach.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja folds this verse into a single reproof spanning verses one through three: the dejection is alien to Arjuna's true nature, out of season, and closes off both this world's good name and the world to come. The Lord, present within Arjuna as inner guide, corrects a wrong estimate of what is truly at stake, mistaking bodies and outcomes for what matters, and calls him back to right action before that error can settle in.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva's gloss likewise begins later, at verse eleven, so no direct word survives on this line either. On the dependence that governs his whole system, the command to rise would be read as the Lord's own will withdrawing the very permission that had allowed the grief to arise a verse earlier, restoring the dependent self to the action proper to it rather than granting it some new independent resolve.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
No commentary by Abhinavagupta on the Gita survives, so this reading is an extension of Kashmir Shaiva vocabulary rather than his own word. On such an extension, the impotence named here is a contraction of consciousness's free, vibrant nature into a frightened identification with the threatened body, and the summons to rise recalls awareness to its own spontaneous vigor rather than imposing an external command.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara hears the address scorcher of foes as the argument itself: one who burns down enemies on every field cannot now be conquered by the inward enemy of a fainting heart. The prohibition targets the condition directly, impotence as craven and unfitting to Arjuna's own stature, and the pettiness of the weakness is read as both its harm and its remedy, small enough to be dropped.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Madhusudana reads the verse as anticipating and foreclosing Arjuna's plea before it is even voiced in the verses that follow: the refusal of impotence comes first, and only afterward does Arjuna state the case being refused. The grounds are Arjuna's own record, valor by birth and valor by deed, held up against the present collapse as evidence that the fainting does not actually fit the man having it.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
Isn't it harsh for Krishna to call Arjuna's hesitation 'unmanly' and 'petty' before even hearing him out fully? Doesn't that dismiss a genuine moral doubt?
The rebuke is aimed at the collapse, the trembling loss of nerve, not at moral seriousness as such. Krishna refuses the condition of giving up before he takes up a single one of Arjuna's actual reasons, which are still to come in the verses that follow this one.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Calling the weakness petty is less an insult than a diagnosis with a built-in remedy: it names something that shrinks whoever holds it and yields no real good, while also naming it small enough to release. The harshness of the word is matched by how little effort it claims the release will take.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The address recalls Arjuna to his own record and lineage rather than inventing a new standard to shame him with. Being reminded who you already are, at your own best moments, is a different thing from being belittled by a standard foreign to you.
Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Contemplation
Notice, the next time resolve drains out of you mid-task, whether you are naming that drain something finer than it is, prudence, sensitivity, fatigue that deserves respect. This verse asks you to look once, plainly, at the collapse itself before you dress it in a better word. If it is only a small weakness of heart, it can be set down; you do not need to argue yourself out of every reason first.
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.