The one who needs nothing still gets up and works.
It would be reasonable to expect someone with nothing left to gain simply to rest. Krishna instead makes His own unceasing activity the argument itself, addressed to Arjuna by name.
Krishna says that in all three worlds He has no duty left to perform and nothing left to gain, yet He goes on acting all the same.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Krishna has just said that even one who has already arrived should keep acting to hold the world together. Now He stops speaking about others and turns to Himself: watch how I live, He says, and see whether the thing I am asking of you is actually possible. This is the first of three verses built on His own example.
The teaching
In all three worlds there is no duty left pending for Him, nothing unattained left for Him to attain. People act, ordinarily, to close some gap, to reach something they still lack. Where nothing is lacking, that motive simply has no purchase. And still He does not step back from action. He remains in it, without pause, without exception. This is the whole hinge of the verse: needing nothing and continuing to work are not opposites here, they sit together in the very same being. The published sources agree on this much and largely stop there; two of the six on file for this verse, Madhva and Abhinavagupta, leave little or nothing specific to this line in their surviving comments, and that honest gap is worth naming rather than quietly filling. What the sources that do speak agree on is the force the example carries outward: if even the one who lacks nothing keeps working, then Arjuna, addressed here as Partha, son of a line of warriors, has correspondingly less room to claim that his own work can be set aside.
The doubt that rises
If nothing compels Him and nothing awaits Him, why does He bother? And does an example set by someone who needs nothing actually reach someone, like most of us, who plainly still does?
Where the paths divide
Read as a spare inference from the verse's own words.
The surviving comment stays close to the line itself: nothing to be done, nothing unattained, and yet He acts. The reasoning supplied is that action exists to secure what is missing, so where nothing is missing, the reason for action falls away entirely. The source does not extend this into a longer unfolding, and none is supplied here in its place.
Read as sovereign play, not duty or need.
This is the Lord whose every wish is already fulfilled, moving through the three worlds by free choice, in every form He takes. His continued action is lila, unobstructed and all-pervading play, undertaken purely to guard and sustain the world out of compassion. Nothing here resembles the need-driven action of a soul still bound by its own past.
Read as an honest silence, not a filled-in gap.
The surviving record has no comment from Madhva on this verse. Rather than invent one, the silence itself is recorded plainly. A conditional extension of his broader system, offered explicitly as extrapolation and not as anything he wrote, would read the Lord's need-free action as proof of every other self's dependence, since only full independence permits nothing left to attain.
Read from the comment shared with the prior verse.
Abhinavagupta's extant comment is written for 3.21 and 3.22 together: one already full, having gained all there is to gain, still acts to bless the world, and the Lord is offered as this teaching's own example. Nothing further specific to 3.22 survives beyond that shared passage; any fuller reading of the Lord's action as consciousness's own free vibration would be a conditional extension of his wider philosophy, not something the source itself states here.
Read as the Lord's freely offered model for a still-striving seeker.
Sridhara restates the verse plainly, as the opening of a sequence where the Lord becomes His own example. Read against his broader devotional temper, this carries the sense that the action is freely given rather than owed, offered precisely so a seeker who still wants things has something concrete to follow. The source itself does not spell this reading out at length, but it sits naturally within what is there.
Read for its direct, personal address to Arjuna.
Madhusudana treats the naming of Partha as decisive: son of Pritha, of pure kshatriya lineage, near kin to Krishna Himself. The general theological claim becomes, through that one word, a personal charge. If even the one who could rightfully claim exemption from all duty does not claim it, then Arjuna, who has nowhere near that standing, has correspondingly less ground to claim one for himself.
The sources agree that the Lord's action has nothing to do with need, and part on why He nonetheless continues: sovereign play for the world's sake, a proof of every soul's dependence, a passage shared with the verse before it, a freely offered pattern, a personal charge laid on one particular listener. And on two of the six voices this page draws on, the honest record is silence or near-silence, which this reading keeps rather than resolves.
A question to carry
If you knew, today, that nothing you did could add to what you already have, would you still get up and do the work in front of you?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
May you find, in whatever you take up today, enough reason in the doing itself, without needing to know first what it will bring you.
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 said even the accomplished should keep acting to hold the world together, Krishna now turns from speaking about others and offers Himself as the living proof, the first of three verses built on His own example.
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 teacher becomes the proof: rather than pointing elsewhere, Krishna says, in effect, watch Me, and do the very thing being asked of you.
Across Viśiṣṭādvaita, Bhakti, AdvaitaRāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Rāmānuja, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
Krishna turns from describing how an accomplished person should act to offering Himself directly as the proof. Having just said even one who has arrived should keep acting to hold the world together, He now says, in effect, watch Me. The teacher does the very thing He is asking of Arjuna, and this makes the instruction land with a weight that a merely general rule could not carry.
The claim is total: nothing pending in the three worlds, nothing unattained left to attain, so no ordinary need drives what follows.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
The claim of the verse is total: in all three worlds there is no duty pending for Him and nothing unattained left for Him to attain. He already possesses whatever any action anywhere could ever win. This is not modesty or a rhetorical flourish; every reading treats it as a literal statement about a being for whom the ordinary motive for action, closing some lack, simply does not apply.
And yet He never sets the work down; the pivot of the verse is that acting and needing nothing turn out to be entirely compatible.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Bhakti, Kashmir ŚaivaŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · Madhusūdana · AbhinavaguptaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 3 others’ words
And yet, needing nothing, He still acts, without pause. The verse pivots on this very point: no requirement compels the action, and the action still continues. Every source treats this as the heart of the teaching, since it demonstrates that acting and being free of want are not opposites but can occupy the very same person at once.
The address by name sharpens the reach: Partha, kin of pure lineage, is being told he is fit to act exactly this way too.
Across Advaita, BhaktiMadhusūdana · ŚrīdharaIn Madhusūdana and Śrīdhara’s words
Because the one who lacks nothing keeps working, the example becomes an argument that reaches Arjuna directly, and the address Partha is read as sharpening that reach: Arjuna, of pure kshatriya descent and near kinship to Krishna, is being told he is fully fit to act exactly as his kinsman acts. The example is not abstract; it is addressed by name.
Where the sources genuinely fall silent, that silence is kept, not papered over with invented words in a master's name.
Across Dvaita, Kashmir ŚaivaMadhva · AbhinavaguptaIn Madhva and Abhinavagupta’s words
Two of the six sources on file for this verse have little or nothing of their own to add here: Madhva's surviving commentary is silent on 3.22, and Abhinavagupta's extant comment is folded into the preceding verse rather than written separately for this one. Both absences are recorded honestly below rather than filled in with invented material.
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 reads the Lord's action as sovereign play, lila, wholly unlike the karma-driven action of any bound soul. Every wish already fulfilled, every form taken by free choice, He acts solely to guard and sustain the world out of compassion, an activity unobstructed and all-pervading, never born of duty owed to another or of any personal deficiency.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
The surviving record has no comment from Madhva on this verse at all; this is recorded as an honest silence rather than filled with invented doctrine. A conditional extension consistent with his broader system, offered explicitly as extrapolation, would read the Lord's need-free action as standing proof of every other self's dependence, since only a wholly independent being could have nothing left to attain.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara restates the verse plainly as the opening of a sequence in which the Lord becomes His own example, with nothing left to do and nothing left to gain, yet still at action. Read against his broader devotional temper, this carries the implication that the action is freely offered rather than owed, given so that a still-striving seeker has something concrete to imitate, though the source itself does not spell out that implication at length.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Read for its address to Arjuna specifically, Madhusudana treats the naming of Partha as the hinge that turns a general theological claim into a personal charge: born of pure kshatriya line and near kin to Krishna, Arjuna has less ground than anyone to claim exemption from action, since even the one being who could rightfully claim it does not.
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 plain fact of the verse: someone with nothing left to gain still gets up and works. Let that loosen, just slightly, your own sense that action needs a reward waiting at the end of it to make sense. Then return to whatever is in front of you today, and see whether you can do it because it is simply the right thing to do, not because of what it will bring back to you.
So take up what is in front of you today, and let its own rightness be reason enough to do it, the way the one who needs nothing still does.
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 describing how an accomplished person should act to offering Himself directly as the proof. Having just said even one who has arrived should keep acting to hold the world together, He now says, in effect, watch Me. The teacher does the very thing He is asking of Arjuna, and this makes the instruction land with a weight that a merely general rule could not carry.
Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The claim of the verse is total: in all three worlds there is no duty pending for Him and nothing unattained left for Him to attain. He already possesses whatever any action anywhere could ever win. This is not modesty or a rhetorical flourish; every reading treats it as a literal statement about a being for whom the ordinary motive for action, closing some lack, simply does not apply.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
And yet, needing nothing, He still acts, without pause. The verse pivots on this very point: no requirement compels the action, and the action still continues. Every source treats this as the heart of the teaching, since it demonstrates that acting and being free of want are not opposites but can occupy the very same person at once.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Because the one who lacks nothing keeps working, the example becomes an argument that reaches Arjuna directly, and the address Partha is read as sharpening that reach: Arjuna, of pure kshatriya descent and near kinship to Krishna, is being told he is fully fit to act exactly as his kinsman acts. The example is not abstract; it is addressed by name.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Two of the six sources on file for this verse have little or nothing of their own to add here: Madhva's surviving commentary is silent on 3.22, and Abhinavagupta's extant comment is folded into the preceding verse rather than written separately for this one. Both absences are recorded honestly below rather than filled in with invented material.
Madhvācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara's surviving comment stays close to the verse's own words: nothing is to be done, nothing remains unattained, and yet He acts. He supplies the underlying inference, that action serves only to secure what is missing and so does not apply where nothing is missing, but the source does not extend beyond this compact statement into a longer meditation on the point.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja reads the Lord's action as sovereign play, lila, wholly unlike the karma-driven action of any bound soul. Every wish already fulfilled, every form taken by free choice, He acts solely to guard and sustain the world out of compassion, an activity unobstructed and all-pervading, never born of duty owed to another or of any personal deficiency.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
The surviving record has no comment from Madhva on this verse at all; this is recorded as an honest silence rather than filled with invented doctrine. A conditional extension consistent with his broader system, offered explicitly as extrapolation, would read the Lord's need-free action as standing proof of every other self's dependence, since only a wholly independent being could have nothing left to attain.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta's extant comment is written under the preceding verse and covers both together: one who has already gained all there is to gain still acts to bless the world, and the Lord is offered as the example of exactly that. No comment specific to 3.22 exists beyond this shared passage; a fuller reading of the Lord's action as consciousness's own free vibration, needing nothing because lacking nothing, would be a conditional extension of his broader philosophy, not something the source itself states here.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara restates the verse plainly as the opening of a sequence in which the Lord becomes His own example, with nothing left to do and nothing left to gain, yet still at action. Read against his broader devotional temper, this carries the implication that the action is freely offered rather than owed, given so that a still-striving seeker has something concrete to imitate, though the source itself does not spell out that implication at length.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Read for its address to Arjuna specifically, Madhusudana treats the naming of Partha as the hinge that turns a general theological claim into a personal charge: born of pure kshatriya line and near kin to Krishna, Arjuna has less ground than anyone to claim exemption from action, since even the one being who could rightfully claim it does not.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If Krishna has nothing to gain and nothing left to do, why does He bother acting at all, and what could that possibly teach someone like me, who plainly does still have things I want?
Notice first what the verse is doing: Krishna is not describing a distant, indifferent God. He is deliberately holding Himself up as the model, and the whole force of the passage rests on the teacher doing the very thing He asks of the student.
Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
He acts not to secure anything for Himself but for the sake of the world, out of compassion, a free and sovereign activity rather than a compelled one. That distinguishes His action from ordinary need-driven striving without making the action itself any less real or any less continuous.
Rāmānujācārya
And that is exactly why the example reaches you. If even the one who needs nothing keeps working, then you, who still do have things to gain, cannot claim your own work is somehow beneath the effort. The address to Arjuna by name presses the same point directly: you are fit to act this way too.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Contemplation
Sit for a moment with the plain fact of the verse: someone with nothing left to gain still gets up and works. Let that loosen, just slightly, your own sense that action needs a reward waiting at the end of it to make sense. Then return to whatever is in front of you today, and see whether you can do it because it is simply the right thing to do, not because of what it will bring back to you.
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.