Arjuna names the puzzle every honest person eventually asks: why do I do the very thing I do not want to do?
This is Arjuna's question, not Krishna's teaching. It is worth sitting with the question itself before rushing to the answer the next verse supplies.
Arjuna asked: Then what is it, Krishna, scion of the Vrishnis, that drives a person to commit wrong even against their own will, as if pushed to it by force?
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Krishna has just warned Arjuna not to fall under the sway of attraction and aversion, the two ambushers waiting in the senses. Arjuna, testing that instruction against what he actually knows of himself and of people, turns and asks the question this whole exchange has been building toward.
The teaching
This verse is entirely Arjuna's question, and it deserves to be heard as a question, not skipped past on the way to Krishna's answer. He is not asking about someone who secretly loves wrongdoing. He means a person with real discernment, someone who knows the rules, who sincerely does not wish to do wrong, and who does it anyway. That is the puzzle: good intention, clearly present, somehow overridden. The image he reaches for is exact - being set to work like a servant compelled by a stronger power, or swept along like someone caught in wind and water. A conscious being does not ordinarily act against its own wish, so something else must be pushing from beneath the will itself. Arjuna has reason to ask this now, and not idly: he has just been told to curb attraction and aversion, and he seems to sense, even as he hears the instruction, that trying to curb these two by sheer discernment still is not enough - a person can work hard at just that and still slip back into the very thing he was avoiding. So beneath those two familiar foes, he suspects, there must be some single deeper root. He names Krishna by his birth into the Vrishni line, Varshneya, which more than one source reads as a quiet appeal: you took birth into this very lineage, so do not turn away now from my question. What the verse does not do, and this matters, is answer itself. Every commentary at this line, however brief, points forward rather than resolving the puzzle here. The naming of the actual enemy is saved for what Krishna says next.
The doubt that rises
I know clearly that this is wrong. I genuinely do not want to do it. So what is the power in me that still drags me into it, against my own will?
Where the paths divide
A hinge, not yet a resolution.
What survives of Shankara's comment here stays close to the verse's own picture: a man driven to wrongful action the way a servant is set to work by a king. Rather than developing a doctrine of the cause at this line, the comment points ahead - hear about that enemy, the maker of all ill, of whom you ask - and waits for the answer the next verse will give.
Sharpest for the seeker of knowledge.
Ramanuja's surviving words locate the puzzle inside a particular life: someone who has already set out on the path of knowledge and, by that very resolve, does not wish to taste sense-objects at all - and yet is still found tasting them, as though some force compelled it. The contradiction is named precisely. Its resolution belongs to what follows, not to this line.
A strategic turn of topic.
Madhva reads the opening words, now then, as marking Arjuna's deliberate shift, tied back to the previous verse's warning against attraction and aversion. Many things prompt wrongdoing, he notes - anger and its kin, and desire among them - and Arjuna's real question is which is strongest, so effort can be aimed at one target instead of scattered across many.
A metaphysical reframing, offered honestly as a fragment.
What survives of Abhinavagupta's comment here is a single dense paragraph, and it is reported as such rather than expanded into a full system. He ties the question to one's own inherent dharma: if that dharma never actually departs from the heart, how can wrongdoing arise against it at all? On a Kashmir Shaiva reading more broadly, one might extend this toward sin as a contraction of one's own free nature - but this is a labeled extrapolation, not the fragment's own further words.
Grounded in the lived experience of relapse.
Sridhara's comment is brief but psychologically exact: even a person who curbs desire and anger by real strength of discernment is still seen to slip back into sin. That relapse, despite genuine effort, is itself the evidence Arjuna reasons from - some other prompter, he suspects, must lie beneath these two as their common root.
A search for the one chief cause among many.
Madhusudana's fuller comment frames the question as one of economy: if all possible causes were equally fundamental, warding off each would be endless labor, but if one is chief and the rest only its helpers, finding that one settles the matter. He also notes the failure runs both ways, doing the forbidden and failing to do the enjoined, both alike showing a sway not one's own.
Every source treats this verse as the well-prepared question rather than the answer. What that answer will turn out to be, and whether naming it changes anything about the felt experience of being pushed, is left open here on purpose - the next verse is where Krishna finally speaks.
A question to carry
Think of a recent moment when you knew something was wrong, did not want to do it, and did it anyway. What do you think was actually happening in you in that moment?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
Let the question sit honestly, unanswered for now. The naming of your real enemy is only a breath away.
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 told Arjuna not to fall under the sway of attraction and aversion; Arjuna, testing that instruction against lived experience, asks what actually drives a person past their own resolve.
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.
This is Arjuna speaking, voicing a doubt, not Krishna delivering a teaching.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhusūdana · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
The verse is entirely Arjuna's question, and every commentator reads its heart as a puzzle about acting against one's own will: a person who genuinely does not wish to do wrong nonetheless does it, as if driven by force. This is not framed as a fool who loves sin, but as someone with real discernment whose good intention is somehow overridden.
The person in view is not someone who loves wrongdoing, but someone with real discernment whose good intention is overridden.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
The image Arjuna reaches for - being set to work like a servant compelled by a king, or swept along like a man in wind and water - is read by nearly all sources as the felt shape of the experience: coercion from within, not from without, since a conscious being does not ordinarily act against its own wish.
The felt experience is coercion from within: pushed like a servant compelled by a stronger power, not merely tempted from outside.
Across Dvaita, Bhakti, AdvaitaMadhva · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Madhva, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
Several sources note that this question follows directly from the previous verse's warning not to fall under the sway of attraction and aversion, and read Arjuna as voicing a practical doubt: even a person actively curbing desire and anger by discernment is still seen to relapse, so something must lie beneath those two as their common root.
Relapse even while trying to curb desire and anger is itself the clue that one deeper root, not many scattered causes, is at work.
Across AdvaitaŚaṅkara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara and Madhusūdana’s words
The address Varshneya, naming Krishna by his birth into the Vrishni line, is read by more than one source as a quiet appeal rather than mere formality: since the Lord took birth into this very lineage, he should not now turn away from the question asked of him.
The question is deliberately left open here; the naming of the one true cause is reserved for the verse immediately following.
Across Advaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Madhva · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Madhva, and 2 others’ words
None of the extant comments at this verse yet name the cause itself. Every source treats this line as a hinge - the sharpened, well-prepared question - that finds its answer only in the verse that follows, where Krishna names desire (kama) as the one enemy.
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's extant line sharpens the puzzle by locating it inside a specific life: the seeker who has already set out on the path of knowledge and so does not wish to taste sense-objects at all, yet is still found tasting them as though forced. The comment names this contradiction precisely but does not, in Ramanuja's own words here, supply its resolution.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva reads the opening words as marking a deliberate turn to a new topic, tied back to the prior warning against attraction and aversion, and takes the question as strategic: among several possible causes, which is strongest, so that effort can be aimed at one target rather than scattered.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara gives the most psychologically vivid reading among the six: even a person who curbs desire and anger by real strength of discernment is still seen to slip back into sin, which is exactly the evidence that suggests some deeper, single prompter beneath those two familiar foes.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Madhusudana's fuller comment treats the question as strategic economy: if one cause is chief and the rest merely its helpers, defeating the one settles what would otherwise be an endless labor against many. He is also concrete that the failure runs both ways - doing the forbidden, and failing to do the enjoined - both alike showing a sway not the person's own.
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 a recent lapse, something you did not want to do and did anyway. Do not rush to the fix or the self-blame. Just notice the shape of it: the wanting-not-to that was real, and the doing-anyway that overrode it. Arjuna's question is exactly this noticing, asked out loud, and it is itself the necessary first step before any answer can land.
Sit with the honest puzzle before reaching for the answer; the naming of your real enemy is only one verse away.
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
he verse is entirely Arjuna's question, and every commentator reads its heart as a puzzle about acting against one's own will: a person who genuinely does not wish to do wrong nonetheless does it, as if driven by force. This is not framed as a fool who loves sin, but as someone with real discernment whose good intention is somehow overridden.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
The image Arjuna reaches for - being set to work like a servant compelled by a king, or swept along like a man in wind and water - is read by nearly all sources as the felt shape of the experience: coercion from within, not from without, since a conscious being does not ordinarily act against its own wish.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Several sources note that this question follows directly from the previous verse's warning not to fall under the sway of attraction and aversion, and read Arjuna as voicing a practical doubt: even a person actively curbing desire and anger by discernment is still seen to relapse, so something must lie beneath those two as their common root.
Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The address Varshneya, naming Krishna by his birth into the Vrishni line, is read by more than one source as a quiet appeal rather than mere formality: since the Lord took birth into this very lineage, he should not now turn away from the question asked of him.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
None of the extant comments at this verse yet name the cause itself. Every source treats this line as a hinge - the sharpened, well-prepared question - that finds its answer only in the verse that follows, where Krishna names desire (kama) as the one enemy.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara's surviving comment stays close to the verse's own image, glossing the compulsion as that of a servant driven by a king, and points ahead to the answer rather than developing doctrine here. Read honestly, this is a hinge-comment: it prepares the question rather than resolving it, leaving the fuller Advaita account of desire as root cause to the next verse.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja's extant line sharpens the puzzle by locating it inside a specific life: the seeker who has already set out on the path of knowledge and so does not wish to taste sense-objects at all, yet is still found tasting them as though forced. The comment names this contradiction precisely but does not, in Ramanuja's own words here, supply its resolution.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva reads the opening words as marking a deliberate turn to a new topic, tied back to the prior warning against attraction and aversion, and takes the question as strategic: among several possible causes, which is strongest, so that effort can be aimed at one target rather than scattered.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta's single surviving paragraph reframes the question as metaphysical: if one's own inherent dharma never departs from the heart, how can wrongdoing arise against it at all? On a Kashmir Shaiva reading more broadly, one might extend this toward sin as a contraction or forgetting of one's own free nature - but this extension is offered here as a clearly labeled, conditional gloss, not as words the extant fragment itself supplies.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara gives the most psychologically vivid reading among the six: even a person who curbs desire and anger by real strength of discernment is still seen to slip back into sin, which is exactly the evidence that suggests some deeper, single prompter beneath those two familiar foes.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Madhusudana's fuller comment treats the question as strategic economy: if one cause is chief and the rest merely its helpers, defeating the one settles what would otherwise be an endless labor against many. He is also concrete that the failure runs both ways - doing the forbidden, and failing to do the enjoined - both alike showing a sway not the person's own.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If I can see clearly that something is wrong and I honestly do not want to do it, why does naming the feeling as 'some force pushing me' help, rather than just being an excuse?
Because the sources agree the experience you are describing is real, not invented. Arjuna is not asking about people who love wrongdoing; he is asking, in his own case and everyone's, why discernment and good intention get overridden. Naming that as a puzzle rather than a moral failure is the accurate description, not an excuse.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Several sources point out that relapse even while actively practicing restraint - curbing desire and anger by real effort - is itself evidence of a single deeper root rather than scattered weakness. That reframing matters practically: it tells you where to aim your effort, at the root rather than at each new symptom.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
And the question is deliberately left open here, by design: every source treats this verse as the sharpened question, not yet the answer. The honest posture is to sit with the puzzle as Arjuna does, rather than to skip ahead - the naming of the actual enemy comes next, in the following verse.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhvācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Contemplation
Sit for a moment with a recent lapse, something you did not want to do and did anyway. Do not rush to the fix or the self-blame. Just notice the shape of it: the wanting-not-to that was real, and the doing-anyway that overrode it. Arjuna's question is exactly this noticing, asked out loud, and it is itself the necessary first step before any answer can land.
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.