The undiscerning take the Veda's promise of reward as the highest there is.
The speakers of this flowery talk know the Vedas well; what they lack is depth of reading. They take the verses that praise rites at face value, as if those praises were the last word, and so a goal beyond the promised rewards never occurs to them.
The undiscerning speak flowery words. They delight in the letter of the Vedas and claim there is nothing more, Arjuna.
Krishna has just praised the steady, single-pointed understanding; here he turns to name what blocks it in most people, answering the implied question of why that resolve does not arise in everyone.
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.
There is a kind of speech that blossoms beautifully and bears no fruit you can eat; it charms at first hearing and never nourishes, promising one rite, one reward.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Śuddhādvaita, Bhakti, and the modern voicesŚaṅkara · Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana · Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati · Rāmānuja · Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara · Viśvanātha · Jñāneśvar · Ramsukhdas · VallabhaIn Śaṅkara, Ānandagiri, and 10 others’ words
Krishna turns from praising the steady, single-pointed understanding to naming what blocks it in most people. He describes a certain kind of speech as 'flowery' (pushpita). The image is exact and almost every commentator dwells on it: a tree or vine covered in showy blossoms that never sets edible fruit. Such a tree is lovely from a distance and charming the moment you hear it, but it gives nothing that nourishes. This 'flowery speech' is the ritual or action section of the Veda, the part that prescribes rites and promises their rewards. It is attractive 'only at the first hearing' or 'only on the surface' because it lays out a neat relation of means and end: do this rite, get that result. What it cannot give is the one fruit that truly satisfies, lasting freedom. Ramsukhdas draws the image out plainly: contentment comes from fruit, not from the beauty of flower and leaf, and this speech is all flower and leaf.
Those who proclaim it are not unlearned; they know the scriptures, yet rest in the praise-verses at face value and miss the deeper purport that real inquiry would open.
Across Advaita, Bhakti, Śuddhādvaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, and the modern voicesŚaṅkara · Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana · Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati · Śrīdhara · Viśvanātha · Puruṣottama · Rāmānuja · Jñāneśvar · Ramsukhdas · Tilak · SivanandaIn Śaṅkara, Ānandagiri, and 11 others’ words
The people who proclaim this speech are called 'unwise' (avipashcit), and the commentators are careful about what their lack is. It is not that they are unlearned in the Veda. The puzzle several of them raise is precisely that these speakers have scriptural learning and still speak this way. Their defect is a lack of discernment of the Veda's deeper purport, the discrimination that inquiry into meaning produces. They cling to the Veda's eulogistic passages (arthavada), verses sung in praise of rites, and they trust those praises at face value as if literally final. The stock examples the commentators quote are 'undecaying indeed is the merit of the four-monthly sacrificer' and 'we have drunk the soma, we have become immortal.' Taking such praise-verses as the last word, they conclude there is nothing higher to attain. Their learning is real; their reading is shallow.
Their claim is that nothing higher exists: heaven and its pleasures are the ceiling, and so steeped in craving are they that they cannot imagine a goal beyond.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Śuddhādvaita, Bhakti, and the modern voicesĀnandagiri · Madhusūdana · Rāmānuja · Puruṣottama · Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati · Śrīdhara · Viśvanātha · Jñāneśvar · Ramsukhdas · SivanandaIn Ānandagiri, Madhusūdana, and 9 others’ words
Their actual claim is captured in the verse's words 'there is nothing else' (na anyad asti). They assert that beyond the rewards reachable by Vedic rites there is no higher goal whatsoever. Heaven and its enjoyments are, for them, the ceiling of existence. Krishna sharpens this with the words the rest of the verse supplies and the commentators unpack: these people are 'made of desire' (kamatmanah) and 'have heaven as their highest' (svargaparah). Ramsukhdas reads kamatmanah with unusual force: they are so absorbed in craving that they identify with it, feeling that without desire a person cannot even live, becomes inert like a stone. So saturated by longing, they cannot conceive a human goal beyond heaven, and several commentators say they cannot bear even to hear talk of liberation.
Because such minds are carried off by that flowery promise, the resolute one-pointed understanding never settles in them; it does not arise, for in that state it simply cannot.
Across Advaita, Bhakti, Śuddhādvaita, ViśiṣṭādvaitaĀnandagiri · Madhusūdana · Dhanapati · Śrīdhara · Viśvanātha · Baladeva · Puruṣottama · RāmānujaIn Ānandagiri, Madhusūdana, and 6 others’ words
This verse is tied tightly to its context, and the commentators read it as the answer to an implied objection: if there is one authoritative resolute understanding, why is it not steady in everyone's mind? The answer is the obstacle this verse names. Because such people's minds are 'carried off' or 'stolen away' by this flowery speech, the resolute, single-pointed understanding (vyavasayatmika buddhi) is not present in them. The verse's later word samadhi is read by several as that same one-pointed concentration; the bhakti commentators gloss it as the single-minded turning of the mind toward the Supreme Lord, and Baladeva derives the word as 'that in which the true nature of the Self is well placed,' meaning the steadied mind. The grammar, they note, is not that this concentration is forbidden to them by some rule; it simply does not arise, because for minds in that state it is not possible.
And the reward itself does not last: a fresh body, more action, perishable gains, then return; when the merit is spent you fall back, and the chain begins again.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Bhakti, and the modern voicesMadhusūdana · Rāmānuja · Sivananda · Ramsukhdas · Jñāneśvar · GandhiIn Madhusūdana, Rāmānuja, and 4 others’ words
Why this matters, and why Krishna treats the flowery speech as a trap rather than simply a lower path, is that its rewards are impermanent. The fruit it gives is birth, action, and more fruit: a fresh body and senses, and a perishable reward like son, cattle, and heaven, doled out endlessly like a chain of water-wheels. The speech 'crowded with particular rites' aims only at enjoyment and lordship, and at the close of the heavenly reward comes return, rebirth and renewed action. Several modern commentators state the consequence directly: life in heaven is itself transitory, and when the merit is spent one falls back to this world, so liberation can come only by knowledge of the Self, not by a thousand sacrifices. Ramsukhdas adds the mechanism: attachment to those enjoyments is itself the cause of future birth.
This is the shared ground; it can be carried as it is. Below is where they differ.
Where they differthe divergence
Advaita Vedānta, in their fuller words
These commentators read the verse as drawing the line between the Veda's action-section and its knowledge-section. The unwise are those who deny that there is any knowledge-fruit beyond the action-fruit, no liberating knowledge beyond the rites and their rewards. Some are described as outright nihilists who say there is no God and no liberation, lacking right knowledge. Madhusudana presses the point furthest into practice: the same rite, even the optional fire-offering, produces only an 'enjoyment-conducive' purity when done aiming at its fruit, but a 'knowledge-conducive' purity when done without aiming at fruit. So the real difference between the wise and the unwise lies not always in the outward rite but in the inward aim, and it is this difference of aim, not the ritual itself, that decides whether action ripens toward knowledge or merely toward more enjoyment.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
These commentators give a pointedly different target for the censure. The problem is not the Veda and not even Vedic rites as such; non-Vedic doctrines may be unresolved, but Vedic doctrines are not. The error belongs to some who, though Vedic, wrongly declare that all Vedic rites without exception yield only heaven and the like. Against this, the held view is that the optional rites yield heaven, while desireless rites, performed with the thought of dedication to the Lord, are for the sake of knowledge. The deeper claim is that the Veda has a hidden import: 'the gods, as it were, love what is indirect,' and texts such as 'it enjoins Me, it speaks of Me' show that the Veda for the most part speaks of the Lord indirectly. So the unwise person's failure is reading the Veda only on its face and missing that its real, veiled subject is the Lord himself.
Viśiṣṭādvaita, in their fuller words
These commentators locate the flaw in the absence of knowledge of the truth (tattva-jnana). The speech is 'crowded with particular rites' precisely because it is empty of such knowledge; ritual multiplies where insight is missing. For one who seeks liberation, by contrast, every rite, whether obligatory, occasional, or optional, becomes a means to a single fruit, liberation, performed with its lesser fruits renounced and offered as worship of the Lord. Vedantadeshika builds an elaborate case that the 'oneness' of the resolute understanding is its being directed at one fruit through one scriptural sanction, so that even varied rites are gathered under a single import; the unwise lack exactly this single moksha-aim, and so their understanding fragments. The speech they love yields, at the very close of the heavenly reward, the fruit called rebirth-and-action.
Bhedābheda, in their fuller words
This commentator frames the verse with his distinctive teaching that final release comes by knowledge and action combined, just as heaven comes when the fire-sacrifices and the rest are joined one with another. From this standpoint the resolute understanding, whose nature is resolve, is one; but it splinters into many branches in four kinds of people who miss the combination: those given to action alone, those who speak of knowledge alone, those who strive for the non-performance of action, and the irresolute generally. The present verse, he says, addresses the first of these, those given to action alone. So the man of flowery speech is, on this reading, specifically the one who absolutizes action while severed from the knowledge that should accompany it.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
These commentators specify that the 'something more' which the unwise deny is the Lord. The further reality they refuse to acknowledge is Ishvara-tattva, the Supreme Lord; they declare that 'nothing beyond this, no further Lord-reality, remains to be attained.' Accordingly Vishvanatha glosses the verse's samadhi as the one-pointed turning of the mind toward the Supreme Lord, the resolute understanding fixed on him, which cannot arise while the mind is carried off by ritual promises. Sridhara intensifies the warning image: the flowery speech is pleasing at first impression like a poisonous vine, attractive yet harmful. Jnaneshwari adds the inner contradiction of these people: they preach the authority and superiority of ritual action, yet in their heart of hearts they crave its fruit, and call the bliss of heaven the only happiness worth having.
Kashmir Śaiva, in their fuller words
This commentator reads the verse tersely and only on its metaphysical edge, addressing the prior claim about the resolute understanding rather than censuring the ritualists at length. The buddhi whose nature is resolve is not some new faculty brought in from outside; it is, for everyone alike, the one and the same innate intelligence. It appears to become many only by reason of the various things it has to determine. The implied point for this verse is that the fragmentation the irresolute suffer is not a fragmentation of intelligence itself, which is one, but of the objects toward which a scattered mind turns it.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
These commentators read the verse historically and psychologically. Sivananda and Tilak identify the target as the ritualists of the Karma Kanda, the authority for the Purvamimamsa school founded by Jaimini, who prescribe many rites for enjoyment and power here and happiness in heaven and regard this as the ultimate object of human existence; against the two divisions of the Veda, the action-section and the knowledge-section, Krishna assigns the ritualist doctrine a comparatively inferior place because it cannot give final liberation. Gandhi-Desai stress that these countless ceremonies, divorced from the essence of the Veda and short-lived in result, are worthless when set against the Gita's own doctrine of Yoga. Ramsukhdas, non-sectarian and devotional, dwells on the inner anatomy of the trap: the Self abides ever unchanging as an amsha (a part) of the Supreme, while desire belongs to the part of the world that comes and goes, so the two are wholly distinct; but those engrossed in craving have no separate awareness of their own nature and so mistake desire for themselves.
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
Ramsukhdas turns this verse into a quiet test you can apply to yourself, without condemning anyone. Notice that the Self in you abides ever as it is, with no real increase or decrease, while desire is the thing that keeps coming and going, swelling and shrinking. Watch how craving behaves and you will see it is a visitor, not your nature. The trap the verse describes is simply forgetting this and letting desire so fill the mind that you can no longer feel yourself apart from it, until, like the people Krishna names, you secretly believe that without wanting something you could not even live. The contemplative move is to keep the distinction awake: the Self is a part of the Supreme, while desire reaches only toward the part that is the passing world. You need not hate enjoyment or rituals to be free of this; you need only stop taking the showy promise of more pleasure as the final word, and remember that lasting contentment comes from the fruit, not from the flower and leaf.
Lasting contentment comes from the fruit, not from the flower and leaf, however showy the promise.
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 turns from praising the steady, single-pointed understanding to naming what blocks it in most people. He describes a certain kind of speech as 'flowery' (pushpita). The image is exact and almost every commentator dwells on it: a tree or vine covered in showy blossoms that never sets edible fruit. Such a tree is lovely from a distance and charming the moment you hear it, but it gives nothing that nourishes. This 'flowery speech' is the ritual or action section of the Veda, the part that prescribes rites and promises their rewards. It is attractive 'only at the first hearing' or 'only on the surface' because it lays out a neat relation of means and end: do this rite, get that result. What it cannot give is the one fruit that truly satisfies, lasting freedom. Ramsukhdas draws the image out plainly: contentment comes from fruit, not from the beauty of flower and leaf, and this speech is all flower and leaf.
Braided from 12 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Rāmānujācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Sant Jñāneśvar · Swami Ramsukhdas · Vallabhācārya
The people who proclaim this speech are called 'unwise' (avipashcit), and the commentators are careful about what their lack is. It is not that they are unlearned in the Veda. The puzzle several of them raise is precisely that these speakers have scriptural learning and still speak this way. Their defect is a lack of discernment of the Veda's deeper purport, the discrimination that inquiry into meaning produces. They cling to the Veda's eulogistic passages (arthavada), verses sung in praise of rites, and they trust those praises at face value as if literally final. The stock examples the commentators quote are 'undecaying indeed is the merit of the four-monthly sacrificer' and 'we have drunk the soma, we have become immortal.' Taking such praise-verses as the last word, they conclude there is nothing higher to attain. Their learning is real; their reading is shallow.
Braided from 13 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Śrī Puruṣottama · Rāmānujācārya · Sant Jñāneśvar · Swami Ramsukhdas · Lokmanya Tilak · Swami Sivananda
Their actual claim is captured in the verse's words 'there is nothing else' (na anyad asti). They assert that beyond the rewards reachable by Vedic rites there is no higher goal whatsoever. Heaven and its enjoyments are, for them, the ceiling of existence. Krishna sharpens this with the words the rest of the verse supplies and the commentators unpack: these people are 'made of desire' (kamatmanah) and 'have heaven as their highest' (svargaparah). Ramsukhdas reads kamatmanah with unusual force: they are so absorbed in craving that they identify with it, feeling that without desire a person cannot even live, becomes inert like a stone. So saturated by longing, they cannot conceive a human goal beyond heaven, and several commentators say they cannot bear even to hear talk of liberation.
Braided from 11 commentators
Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Rāmānujācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Sant Jñāneśvar · Swami Ramsukhdas · Swami Sivananda
This verse is tied tightly to its context, and the commentators read it as the answer to an implied objection: if there is one authoritative resolute understanding, why is it not steady in everyone's mind? The answer is the obstacle this verse names. Because such people's minds are 'carried off' or 'stolen away' by this flowery speech, the resolute, single-pointed understanding (vyavasayatmika buddhi) is not present in them. The verse's later word samadhi is read by several as that same one-pointed concentration; the bhakti commentators gloss it as the single-minded turning of the mind toward the Supreme Lord, and Baladeva derives the word as 'that in which the true nature of the Self is well placed,' meaning the steadied mind. The grammar, they note, is not that this concentration is forbidden to them by some rule; it simply does not arise, because for minds in that state it is not possible.
Braided from 8 commentators
Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Śrīla Baladeva · Śrī Puruṣottama · Rāmānujācārya
Why this matters, and why Krishna treats the flowery speech as a trap rather than simply a lower path, is that its rewards are impermanent. The fruit it gives is birth, action, and more fruit: a fresh body and senses, and a perishable reward like son, cattle, and heaven, doled out endlessly like a chain of water-wheels. The speech 'crowded with particular rites' aims only at enjoyment and lordship, and at the close of the heavenly reward comes return, rebirth and renewed action. Several modern commentators state the consequence directly: life in heaven is itself transitory, and when the merit is spent one falls back to this world, so liberation can come only by knowledge of the Self, not by a thousand sacrifices. Ramsukhdas adds the mechanism: attachment to those enjoyments is itself the cause of future birth.
Braided from 6 commentators
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Rāmānujācārya · Swami Sivananda · Swami Ramsukhdas · Sant Jñāneśvar · Mahatma Gandhi
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
These commentators read the verse as drawing the line between the Veda's action-section and its knowledge-section. The unwise are those who deny that there is any knowledge-fruit beyond the action-fruit, no liberating knowledge beyond the rites and their rewards. Some are described as outright nihilists who say there is no God and no liberation, lacking right knowledge. Madhusudana presses the point furthest into practice: the same rite, even the optional fire-offering, produces only an 'enjoyment-conducive' purity when done aiming at its fruit, but a 'knowledge-conducive' purity when done without aiming at fruit. So the real difference between the wise and the unwise lies not always in the outward rite but in the inward aim, and it is this difference of aim, not the ritual itself, that decides whether action ripens toward knowledge or merely toward more enjoyment.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri
Dvaita
These commentators give a pointedly different target for the censure. The problem is not the Veda and not even Vedic rites as such; non-Vedic doctrines may be unresolved, but Vedic doctrines are not. The error belongs to some who, though Vedic, wrongly declare that all Vedic rites without exception yield only heaven and the like. Against this, the held view is that the optional rites yield heaven, while desireless rites, performed with the thought of dedication to the Lord, are for the sake of knowledge. The deeper claim is that the Veda has a hidden import: 'the gods, as it were, love what is indirect,' and texts such as 'it enjoins Me, it speaks of Me' show that the Veda for the most part speaks of the Lord indirectly. So the unwise person's failure is reading the Veda only on its face and missing that its real, veiled subject is the Lord himself.
Madhvācārya · Śrī Jayatīrtha
Viśiṣṭādvaita
These commentators locate the flaw in the absence of knowledge of the truth (tattva-jnana). The speech is 'crowded with particular rites' precisely because it is empty of such knowledge; ritual multiplies where insight is missing. For one who seeks liberation, by contrast, every rite, whether obligatory, occasional, or optional, becomes a means to a single fruit, liberation, performed with its lesser fruits renounced and offered as worship of the Lord. Vedantadeshika builds an elaborate case that the 'oneness' of the resolute understanding is its being directed at one fruit through one scriptural sanction, so that even varied rites are gathered under a single import; the unwise lack exactly this single moksha-aim, and so their understanding fragments. The speech they love yields, at the very close of the heavenly reward, the fruit called rebirth-and-action.
Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika
Bhedabheda
This commentator frames the verse with his distinctive teaching that final release comes by knowledge and action combined, just as heaven comes when the fire-sacrifices and the rest are joined one with another. From this standpoint the resolute understanding, whose nature is resolve, is one; but it splinters into many branches in four kinds of people who miss the combination: those given to action alone, those who speak of knowledge alone, those who strive for the non-performance of action, and the irresolute generally. The present verse, he says, addresses the first of these, those given to action alone. So the man of flowery speech is, on this reading, specifically the one who absolutizes action while severed from the knowledge that should accompany it.
Śrī Bhāskara
Bhakti
These commentators specify that the 'something more' which the unwise deny is the Lord. The further reality they refuse to acknowledge is Ishvara-tattva, the Supreme Lord; they declare that 'nothing beyond this, no further Lord-reality, remains to be attained.' Accordingly Vishvanatha glosses the verse's samadhi as the one-pointed turning of the mind toward the Supreme Lord, the resolute understanding fixed on him, which cannot arise while the mind is carried off by ritual promises. Sridhara intensifies the warning image: the flowery speech is pleasing at first impression like a poisonous vine, attractive yet harmful. Jnaneshwari adds the inner contradiction of these people: they preach the authority and superiority of ritual action, yet in their heart of hearts they crave its fruit, and call the bliss of heaven the only happiness worth having.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Śrīla Baladeva · Sant Jñāneśvar
Kashmir Shaivism
This commentator reads the verse tersely and only on its metaphysical edge, addressing the prior claim about the resolute understanding rather than censuring the ritualists at length. The buddhi whose nature is resolve is not some new faculty brought in from outside; it is, for everyone alike, the one and the same innate intelligence. It appears to become many only by reason of the various things it has to determine. The implied point for this verse is that the fragmentation the irresolute suffer is not a fragmentation of intelligence itself, which is one, but of the objects toward which a scattered mind turns it.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Modern
These commentators read the verse historically and psychologically. Sivananda and Tilak identify the target as the ritualists of the Karma Kanda, the authority for the Purvamimamsa school founded by Jaimini, who prescribe many rites for enjoyment and power here and happiness in heaven and regard this as the ultimate object of human existence; against the two divisions of the Veda, the action-section and the knowledge-section, Krishna assigns the ritualist doctrine a comparatively inferior place because it cannot give final liberation. Gandhi-Desai stress that these countless ceremonies, divorced from the essence of the Veda and short-lived in result, are worthless when set against the Gita's own doctrine of Yoga. Ramsukhdas, non-sectarian and devotional, dwells on the inner anatomy of the trap: the Self abides ever unchanging as an amsha (a part) of the Supreme, while desire belongs to the part of the world that comes and goes, so the two are wholly distinct; but those engrossed in craving have no separate awareness of their own nature and so mistake desire for themselves.
Swami Sivananda · Mahatma Gandhi · Lokmanya Tilak · Swami Ramsukhdas
A Seeker Asks
If the Veda itself prescribes these rites and they really do bring their rewards, why is being devoted to them treated as a dead end rather than just a lower but valid path?
The objection the commentators raise is exactly yours, and their first answer is that the rewards, though real, are impermanent. The flowery speech delivers a perishable fruit, son, cattle, heaven, given endlessly like a turning chain of water-wheels, and at the close of the heavenly reward comes return, rebirth and renewed action. So the path is not condemned for failing to deliver; it is limited because what it delivers runs out and deposits you back in the cycle.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Rāmānujācārya · Swami Sivananda
The deeper problem is not the rite at all but the aim and the verdict attached to it. The fault named is the claim 'there is nothing else,' the refusal to acknowledge any goal beyond heaven. Several commentators stress that the very same action, done without aiming at its reward, purifies the mind toward knowledge, whereas done for the sake of its fruit it yields only more enjoyment. So Krishna is not banning the rite; he is exposing the mind that absolutizes it and treats its reward as the ceiling of existence.
Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Rāmānujācārya
It becomes a dead end specifically because of what such devotion does to the inner faculty. Krishna's whole point in context is that the resolute, single-pointed understanding cannot arise in a mind that has been carried off by these glittering promises. Some commentators add that the Veda's own ritual praises were never meant to be read as final; they are eulogies, and the Veda's authority lies in its deeper purport, which for the Lord-centered readers is the Lord himself and for others the knowledge-section beyond the rites. Loving the flower so much that you miss the fruit is the dead end, not the existence of the flower.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Madhvācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Contemplation
Ramsukhdas turns this verse into a quiet test you can apply to yourself, without condemning anyone. Notice that the Self in you abides ever as it is, with no real increase or decrease, while desire is the thing that keeps coming and going, swelling and shrinking. Watch how craving behaves and you will see it is a visitor, not your nature. The trap the verse describes is simply forgetting this and letting desire so fill the mind that you can no longer feel yourself apart from it, until, like the people Krishna names, you secretly believe that without wanting something you could not even live. The contemplative move is to keep the distinction awake: the Self is a part of the Supreme, while desire reaches only toward the part that is the passing world. You need not hate enjoyment or rituals to be free of this; you need only stop taking the showy promise of more pleasure as the final word, and remember that lasting contentment comes from the fruit, not from the flower and leaf.
Sit with this · Swami Ramsukhdas
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, tap a name in The seating.