Nature carries even the knower; bare command was never going to be enough.
Krishna names the plain reason his own teaching goes unheeded. It is not a verdict against effort. It is a diagnosis, pointing past the surface of the act toward where the real work waits.
Even a person of knowledge acts in keeping with their own nature; every being follows its nature. What, then, can mere restraint accomplish?
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Krishna has just drawn a line between the true worker, absorbed in their real nature, and the false one, whose restraint is only outward show. Now he answers the objection that must already be forming: if the better path is so clearly better, why do people not simply take it?
The teaching
You act in keeping with your own nature, and this is true even of one who has knowledge. Nature here is not a vague mood; it is the residue of past action, the impression left by merit and demerit accumulated over former lives, carried forward and made active now. Because it has been building since beginningless time, it runs deep and strong. If even a knower, one who can see right from wrong and knows what scripture says, is still carried by it, how much more the person who has not yet studied at all. So the closing question lands with real weight: what can mere restraint, an outer command or prohibition, accomplish against a force this old and this strong? On its own, not much. But this is a diagnosis, not a verdict of defeat. The sources on file are clear that the point of naming nature's force is to show precisely where prohibition fails, so that the seeker stops expecting the cure to come from outside and starts looking for it at the root, in the attraction and aversion that shape the act before the act ever begins.
The doubt that rises
If nature is this strong, and outer command this weak against it, is any real effort possible? Or does the verse quietly excuse whatever a person happens to do, on the grounds that it was always just their nature?
Where the paths divide
Read honestly, since the surviving fragment states this tension without going on to resolve it.
Shankara names the worry directly: if every creature acts only by nature, and no one lacks a nature, then human effort and scripture itself would seem to lose their purpose. Nature is precisely the manifest impression of a former birth's merit and demerit; even the knower is subject to it, exactly as the maxim holds that knower and non-knower are alike here. The extant comment ends with the tension stated; it does not itself, in what survives, go on to answer it.
Read as the self's true nature against an old matter-habit.
Ramanuja is precise about who this verse describes: not one who has realized the self directly, but one who has only heard scripture and grasped, intellectually, that the self is distinct from matter. That knowledge, gained only today, is not yet strong enough to still an impression unfolding since beginningless confusion. The old mark still runs in worldly dealings, however clearly the truth has been heard.
Read cautiously, since the extant comment here is thin.
The one line of Madhva's on file simply names nature as the formative tendency carried from before, offered as the direct answer to why people resist good teaching. A fuller Dvaita account, consistent with but going beyond this fragment, holds that each soul's nature is its own particular load of carried attachment and aversion, dependent even in its shape on the Lord. That fuller claim is marked here as an extension, not as Madhva's own recorded words on this verse.
Read cautiously, since the extant comment here is thin.
Abhinavagupta's surviving line is brief: even the knower shows no reversal in ordinary living, acting exactly as fits the qualities of nature; the elements dissolve back into nature, while the self is a non-doer, ever free. He asks directly whose task it even is to curb birth and the rest. A fuller Trika reading, that the entire demand for restraint rests on a false premise, is offered here as a clearly marked extrapolation beyond what this fragment states.
Read cautiously, since the extant comment here is compact.
Sridhara's surviving gloss establishes that nature, the residue of prior action, binds the virtuous knower as much as the ignorant, so restraint of the senses alone cannot overcome it. The wider bhakti-commentary tradition around this line extends it into a graded remedy, action for the impure mind, knowledge for the pure, devotion and grace where nature is utterly impure, but this fuller grading is marked here as belonging to that broader tradition rather than to Sridhara's own words on this verse.
Read as diagnosis, deliberately left short of remedy.
Madhusudana frames the verse against a real objection: people fear even a king's command, so why not Krishna's teaching? Nature, the strong imprint of merit, demerit, knowledge, and desire from a past birth, is the answer; even a knower of Brahman is carried by it. He is careful to offer this as diagnosis of why prohibition fails, not as an excuse for wrongdoing, and his comment on this verse stops there rather than reaching for the fuller remedy the next verse will supply.
All six readings agree nature is real and strong, and that bare prohibition cannot overpower it alone. They differ on how much can be said beyond that diagnosis. For two of the six acaryas here, the surviving record on this verse is genuinely thin, and this page has marked exactly where their own words end and a school's broader reading begins. What the fuller remedy looks like, whether inward discernment, surrendered worship, dependence on the Lord, recognized freedom, or grace, is left open rather than settled in one voice.
A question to carry
Where in your own life have you mistaken a habit for your unchangeable nature, and where has an outer rule alone ever actually managed to move you?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
So do not let this verse become an excuse. Let it show you, honestly, where outer command runs out, and let that be exactly where your real attention begins.
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 just distinguished the true worker from the false, one absorbed in his true nature, one performing only outward restraint; here he explains why so many still fail to choose the better path.
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.
Every being, without exception, acts in keeping with its own nature, whatever command may say otherwise.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhva · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 3 others’ words
Krishna is answering a sharp, unspoken objection: if his teaching brings the highest good and ignoring it brings ruin, why do people not simply obey it? The verse's answer is that everyone acts in keeping with their own nature, prakriti, and this holds regardless of how authoritative the command urging otherwise may be.
This nature is not a passing mood; it is the accumulated residue of past merit and demerit, and it is strong.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, DvaitaŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhva · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
This 'nature' is defined precisely, not vaguely: it is the residue of past action, the impression left by merit and demerit accrued over former lives, carried forward and made active in the present birth. Because it has been accumulating since beginningless time, the commentators agree it is extremely strong.
Even the person of knowledge is carried by it, so the fool is carried more, not less.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
The verse presses an a fortiori point: even one who has knowledge, who has heard scripture and can see right from wrong, still acts according to this nature. If the knower is carried along, how much more the fool; on this point, the sources agree, a person is no different from any other creature.
Outer restraint, coercion, or prohibition alone cannot overturn nature's accumulated force.
Across Advaita, ViśiṣṭādvaitaŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 1 others’ words
Hence the closing question: what will restraint, nigraha, accomplish? Restraint means outer coercion, prohibition, or command, whether Krishna's, a king's, or scripture's. Against the sheer force of accumulated nature, the commentators agree such external pressure alone cannot turn a person from their course.
The verse diagnoses why bare command fails precisely so the seeker looks for the deeper, inward cure.
Across AdvaitaŚaṅkara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara and Madhusūdana’s words
None of the sources on file present this as counsel toward fatalism. Shankara's surviving comment names the worry that the verse could be read as cancelling human effort and scripture's purpose, though the extant fragment stops at stating the tension rather than resolving it, and Madhusudana frames the whole passage as diagnosis rather than excuse. Nothing in what survives treats effort as futile.
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 turns the verse on the self's relation to matter: the true self is by nature distinct from insentient prakriti, and scripture calls for constant awareness of exactly that. Yet even a person who has only heard and intellectually grasped this distinction still behaves, in worldly dealings, along the old mark of a matter-nature unfolding since beginningless time. A knowledge born only today, from indirect scriptural teaching, cannot yet still an impression of that age and force.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
The extant Madhva fragment is only one line: nature (prakriti) is the formative tendency carried over from before, offered as the direct answer to why people resist good teaching. On a fuller Dvaita reading, consistent with but going beyond this fragment, nature is each soul's own particular load of carried-over attachment and aversion, differing soul to soul, since even the shape one's nature takes is itself dependent on the Lord.
Shaiva, in their fuller words
Abhinavagupta's surviving comment is brief but distinctive: even the knower shows no reversal in ordinary living, acting exactly as fits sattva and the other strands. The beings made of the elements dissolve back into nature, while the self is a non-doer, ever free, so the fragment asks directly whose task it even is to curb birth and the rest. Because the source is thin, a fuller Trika reading, that the whole demand for restraint rests on a false premise, is offered here as a marked extrapolation rather than his recorded words.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara's surviving gloss is compact: nature is the disposition set by residues of prior action, binding the virtuous knower as much as the ignorant, so senseless is any hope that mere restraint of the senses could overcome it. The wider bhakti-commentary tradition around this line extends it into a graded remedy, desireless action for the impure mind, knowledge for the pure, devotion and grace for a nature utterly impure, but this fuller grading is marked here as belonging to that broader tradition rather than to Sridhara's own recorded words on this verse.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Madhusudana reads the verse as answering a sharp objection: people fear a king's command, so why not Krishna's teaching? His answer is that nature, the imprint of merit, demerit, knowledge, and desire from a past birth, is so strong that even a knower of Brahman is carried by it, exactly as the maxim holds that in this respect all creatures are alike. He frames the verse as diagnosis of why prohibition fails on its own, not as an excuse for wrongdoing, and stops there rather than reaching for a remedy his comment on this verse does not supply.
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, today, one moment where you act simply because it is your habit, with no hunger and no dread attached, and one moment where a like or a dislike is quietly steering you. The verse asks you to see the difference, not to condemn either. The remedy it points toward begins exactly at that noticing, at the root where craving and aversion first color the act, not at the act's surface.
So do not mistake nature's pull for a verdict on your effort. Let this verse show you where the real work waits, and go there 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
rishna is answering a sharp, unspoken objection: if his teaching brings the highest good and ignoring it brings ruin, why do people not simply obey it? The verse's answer is that everyone acts in keeping with their own nature, prakriti, and this holds regardless of how authoritative the command urging otherwise may be.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
This 'nature' is defined precisely, not vaguely: it is the residue of past action, the impression left by merit and demerit accrued over former lives, carried forward and made active in the present birth. Because it has been accumulating since beginningless time, the commentators agree it is extremely strong.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The verse presses an a fortiori point: even one who has knowledge, who has heard scripture and can see right from wrong, still acts according to this nature. If the knower is carried along, how much more the fool; on this point, the sources agree, a person is no different from any other creature.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Hence the closing question: what will restraint, nigraha, accomplish? Restraint means outer coercion, prohibition, or command, whether Krishna's, a king's, or scripture's. Against the sheer force of accumulated nature, the commentators agree such external pressure alone cannot turn a person from their course.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
None of the sources on file present this as counsel toward fatalism. Shankara's surviving comment names the worry that the verse could be read as cancelling human effort and scripture's purpose, though the extant fragment stops at stating the tension rather than resolving it, and Madhusudana frames the whole passage as diagnosis rather than excuse. Nothing in what survives treats effort as futile.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara names the logical tension the verse seems to create: if every creature acts only by nature, and no one lacks a nature, then human effort would have no room and scripture would lose its purpose. Nature is defined strictly as the manifest impression of a former birth's merit and demerit, and the maxim that knower and non-knower are alike here shows the conclusion holds for all. The surviving fragment states this tension and stops there; it does not itself go on, in what remains of Shankara's own words on this verse, to resolve it.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja turns the verse on the self's relation to matter: the true self is by nature distinct from insentient prakriti, and scripture calls for constant awareness of exactly that. Yet even a person who has only heard and intellectually grasped this distinction still behaves, in worldly dealings, along the old mark of a matter-nature unfolding since beginningless time. A knowledge born only today, from indirect scriptural teaching, cannot yet still an impression of that age and force.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
The extant Madhva fragment is only one line: nature (prakriti) is the formative tendency carried over from before, offered as the direct answer to why people resist good teaching. On a fuller Dvaita reading, consistent with but going beyond this fragment, nature is each soul's own particular load of carried-over attachment and aversion, differing soul to soul, since even the shape one's nature takes is itself dependent on the Lord.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta's surviving comment is brief but distinctive: even the knower shows no reversal in ordinary living, acting exactly as fits sattva and the other strands. The beings made of the elements dissolve back into nature, while the self is a non-doer, ever free, so the fragment asks directly whose task it even is to curb birth and the rest. Because the source is thin, a fuller Trika reading, that the whole demand for restraint rests on a false premise, is offered here as a marked extrapolation rather than his recorded words.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara's surviving gloss is compact: nature is the disposition set by residues of prior action, binding the virtuous knower as much as the ignorant, so senseless is any hope that mere restraint of the senses could overcome it. The wider bhakti-commentary tradition around this line extends it into a graded remedy, desireless action for the impure mind, knowledge for the pure, devotion and grace for a nature utterly impure, but this fuller grading is marked here as belonging to that broader tradition rather than to Sridhara's own recorded words on this verse.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Madhusudana reads the verse as answering a sharp objection: people fear a king's command, so why not Krishna's teaching? His answer is that nature, the imprint of merit, demerit, knowledge, and desire from a past birth, is so strong that even a knower of Brahman is carried by it, exactly as the maxim holds that in this respect all creatures are alike. He frames the verse as diagnosis of why prohibition fails on its own, not as an excuse for wrongdoing, and stops there rather than reaching for a remedy his comment on this verse does not supply.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If even a wise person is carried by their own nature, and outer rules cannot stop it, is moral effort simply pointless? Am I excused for whatever I do?
The verse is a diagnosis, not a pardon. It explains why bare prohibition fails against accumulated nature; it never says the failure of prohibition means nothing can be done. Read this way, it is the first half of an argument whose second half is the deeper cure the following verse points toward.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
What the verse rules out is only one kind of remedy, outer coercion applied to the act itself. It says nothing against work aimed at the root, at the attraction and aversion that color the act. Effort is not cancelled; it is redirected inward, toward where nature is actually formed and held.
Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Even on readings where the surviving comment is thin, none of the sources on file draw a fatalist conclusion from this verse. Where a fuller remedy is offered, it always points somewhere, toward knowledge, toward grace, toward recognizing what is already free, never toward resignation.
Madhvācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Contemplation
Notice, today, one moment where you act simply because it is your habit, with no hunger and no dread attached, and one moment where a like or a dislike is quietly steering you. The verse asks you to see the difference, not to condemn either. The remedy it points toward begins exactly at that noticing, at the root where craving and aversion first color the act, not at the act's surface.
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.