Krishna names two mirror-image sacrifices: holding the senses back, and meeting their objects free of craving.
This is a narration verse, Krishna cataloguing the many forms sacrifice can take, not a direct command. It rewards attention less for what it commands than for what it lets stand unranked, side by side, as equally real offerings.
Some offer the senses themselves, hearing and the rest, into the fires of restraint. Others offer the objects of the senses, sound and the rest, into the fires of the senses.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
You are still inside Krishna's long list of what counts as yajna. Two more entries arrive here, and they look like opposites. One practitioner shuts the senses down. Another lets them open onto the world. Both, Krishna says, are sacrifice.
The teaching
The first offering pours the senses themselves, hearing and the rest, into the fires of restraint. Restraint is not one uniform act; it must be practiced separately for each sense, so the fires are many, one small discipline burning for each sense held back. The second offering reverses the picture. Now the senses are the fires, and what is offered into them is their objects, sound and the rest. Instead of shutting the senses, these practitioners let them meet the world, but only what scripture permits, and only without craving. Contact received free of liking and disliking becomes an offering exactly as real as withdrawal. What decides whether either path is genuinely spiritual is not whether the eyes are open or shut. It is whether attachment has actually loosened its grip underneath the chosen posture. For this particular verse, the record behind these two readings is uneven. Some voices, Shankara descriptively, Madhusudana at real technical depth, Sridhara through the lens of two stations of life, give substantial material to work with. Others do not. Ramanuja's surviving comment is a single spare sentence, and Madhva is recorded as offering no comment on this verse at all. Where the sources are thin, this page stays thin with them, rather than manufacturing a fuller voice than the record can support.
The doubt that rises
If both closing off the world and meeting it can equally be called sacrifice, what stops either one from becoming an excuse, withdrawal as avoidance, or engagement as indulgence wearing the name of discipline?
Where the paths divide
Descriptive in Shankara, technically deep in Madhusudana.
Shankara names the two offerings plainly, restraint of the senses and disciplined reception of their objects, without extending the description further in what survives. Madhusudana goes considerably deeper, identifying restraint with Patanjali's technical samyama, the union of concentration, meditation, and absorption, and distinguishing conscious absorption, where an object-shaped thought still shines, from seedless absorption, where none remains. For him the second offering is the same freedom from craving, carried by the yogin back into ordinary contact with the world after formal absorption.
The extant note is brief; the entry does not extend it further.
What survives of Ramanuja's comment names two efforts and stops there: some yogins strive at restraining the senses, others at warding off the senses' pull toward their objects. This is a naming of practice, not a developed argument, and nothing further is claimed in his name beyond what the source actually preserves.
Honest silence, not invention.
Madhva is recorded as offering no comment on this verse. There is no fragment to draw from. Extending his broader system of dependence and grace to this verse is possible only as a clearly marked conditional extrapolation, never as a report of what he actually wrote, and this page keeps that distinction explicit rather than blurring it for the sake of symmetry with the other five.
A nondual secret teaching, named as such by Abhinavagupta himself.
Restraint, in this reading, is the mind, and its fires are sparks that scorch up longing before it can settle into craving. The second offering becomes something more than restrained enjoyment: such practitioners seek enjoyment precisely to burn away the deep impression that enjoyer and enjoyed are separate, grounded in Abhinavagupta's own earlier teaching that no thing enjoyed stands apart from the one who enjoys it.
Two stations of life, mapped by Sridhara.
Sridhara reads the two offerings as belonging to two ways of living rather than two philosophies. Lifelong celibate students dissolve the senses in the fires of restraint, standing fixed with restraint as their governing discipline. Householders, given leave by scripture, take the senses themselves as fires and offer sound and the rest into them, remaining unattached even at the moment of enjoyment.
Reading Madhusudana and Sridhara together as complementary.
Taken side by side, the two fullest commentaries on this verse converge on something usable now: withdrawal and disciplined engagement are not rival virtues competing for first place, but two roads to the identical inner work, the removal of liking and disliking. Neither commentator ranks one path as intrinsically higher; each describes the discipline proper to the practitioner's own station and capacity.
The fuller sources agree that unattachment, not outward posture, is what makes either offering real, but they do not agree on how to describe the discipline behind that unattachment: technical meditative absorption for Madhusudana, a station of life for Sridhara, a nondual dissolving of enjoyer and enjoyed for Abhinavagupta. And for two of the six voices gathered here, Ramanuja and Madhva, the record itself stays thin or silent, leaving open what a fuller Vishishtadvaita or Dvaita reading of this particular verse might have said had more survived.
A question to carry
Right now, in whatever you are holding back from or allowing yourself, can you actually feel whether craving is present underneath, or only assume it is absent because the outward posture looks disciplined?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
You do not have to choose between leaving the world and living in it. The same fire burns in either. Alone, let the senses settle inward and reach for nothing. Among things, let them meet what comes while no liking or disliking takes hold.
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.
Still inside Krishna's survey of yajna in its many forms, this verse pairs sense-withdrawal with sense-engagement as two versions of the same inner discipline.
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.
Some offer the senses themselves into the fires of restraint, hearing and the rest drawn back from their objects, one small fire for each sense governed.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
The verse names two sacrifices that look like opposites. In one, the senses themselves are offered into the fires of restraint, hearing and the rest drawn back from their objects. In the other, the senses become the fires and their objects, sound and the rest, are what is poured in. Both are called yajna, sacrifice, extending the word far past ritual fire.
Others offer the objects, sound and the rest, into the fires of the senses, meeting the world through lawful, unforbidden contact.
Across AdvaitaŚaṅkara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara and Madhusūdana’s words
The plural fires in the first offering is read as deliberate: restraint is not a single uniform act but a distinct discipline undertaken for each sense in turn, so every act of holding back is its own small fire, however many senses there are to govern.
The second offering holds only when it is met without craving; liking and disliking absent is what turns contact into sacrifice rather than indulgence.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
The second offering carries a shared condition across the sources that comment on it: the objects received must not be forbidden by scripture, and they must be met without craving. Lawful contact, taken in free of liking and disliking, is what makes engagement with the world a sacrifice rather than mere indulgence.
Neither path is ranked above the other in what the fuller sources preserve; each simply names a real discipline suited to a real situation.
Across Advaita, Bhakti, Kashmir ŚaivaŚaṅkara · Śrīdhara · Madhusūdana · AbhinavaguptaIn Śaṅkara, Śrīdhara, and 2 others’ words
Across both offerings, what actually does the work is the same inner condition, not the outward posture. Whether the senses are held shut or let open onto lawful objects, the sacrifice is real only where attachment and aversion have genuinely fallen away.
Where the record for a given master is thin or silent, as it is for two of the six voices gathered here, the honest reading says so rather than inventing a fuller voice.
Across Viśiṣṭādvaita, DvaitaRāmānuja · MadhvaIn Rāmānuja and Madhva’s words
Two of the six named voices for this verse are thin or silent in what survives: Ramanuja's extant note is a single spare sentence naming two efforts without elaboration, and Madhva is recorded as offering no comment at all. What can honestly be built from the record for these two acaryas is accordingly modest.
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
What survives of Ramanuja's comment here is brief: some yogins strive at restraining the senses, others strive at warding off the senses' bent toward their objects. This names two forms of effort rather than a developed philosophy of surrender, and the entry deliberately does not extend it further than the source supports.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva is recorded as offering no comment on this verse. No fragment survives to draw from, so this entry states that absence honestly rather than manufacturing a reading in his voice; any extension from his general system elsewhere would be conditional extrapolation, clearly marked as such, not a report of anything he actually wrote here.
Shaiva, in their fuller words
Abhinavagupta reads restraint as the mind itself, its fires as sparks that scorch up longing before it hardens into craving. The second offering becomes a secret teaching: enjoyment is sought precisely to burn away the deep impression of separateness between enjoyer and enjoyed, grounded in his own earlier statement that no thing enjoyed stands apart from the one who enjoys it.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Read together, the two extant fuller commentaries converge on a practical point that reads plainly to a modern ear: withdrawal and disciplined engagement are not competing virtues but two roads to the identical inner work, the removal of liking and disliking. Neither commentator ranks one path as intrinsically higher; each simply describes the discipline proper to the practitioner's own situation.
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 whether you are, in this moment, holding something back or letting something in. Either is workable. The only question worth asking underneath it is whether liking or disliking has quietly taken hold of the choice, or whether you are free enough to let the moment be exactly what it is.
Whichever fire you tend today, the senses held back or the senses let out to meet the world, may the craving underneath be what quietly burns 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 names two sacrifices that look like opposites. In one, the senses themselves are offered into the fires of restraint, hearing and the rest drawn back from their objects. In the other, the senses become the fires and their objects, sound and the rest, are what is poured in. Both are called yajna, sacrifice, extending the word far past ritual fire.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The plural fires in the first offering is read as deliberate: restraint is not a single uniform act but a distinct discipline undertaken for each sense in turn, so every act of holding back is its own small fire, however many senses there are to govern.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The second offering carries a shared condition across the sources that comment on it: the objects received must not be forbidden by scripture, and they must be met without craving. Lawful contact, taken in free of liking and disliking, is what makes engagement with the world a sacrifice rather than mere indulgence.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Across both offerings, what actually does the work is the same inner condition, not the outward posture. Whether the senses are held shut or let open onto lawful objects, the sacrifice is real only where attachment and aversion have genuinely fallen away.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Two of the six named voices for this verse are thin or silent in what survives: Ramanuja's extant note is a single spare sentence naming two efforts without elaboration, and Madhva is recorded as offering no comment at all. What can honestly be built from the record for these two acaryas is accordingly modest.
Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara reads the two offerings descriptively, as restraint of the senses and the disciplined reception of their objects, without further technical elaboration in what survives. Madhusudana reads far more deeply into the first offering, identifying restraint with Patanjali's technical samyama, the union of concentration, meditation, and absorption, and distinguishing conscious from seedless absorption by the mind's own grounds. For him the second offering is the same freedom from craving carried into ordinary engagement with the world after the yogin has returned from formal absorption.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Viśiṣṭādvaita
What survives of Ramanuja's comment here is brief: some yogins strive at restraining the senses, others strive at warding off the senses' bent toward their objects. This names two forms of effort rather than a developed philosophy of surrender, and the entry deliberately does not extend it further than the source supports.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva is recorded as offering no comment on this verse. No fragment survives to draw from, so this entry states that absence honestly rather than manufacturing a reading in his voice; any extension from his general system elsewhere would be conditional extrapolation, clearly marked as such, not a report of anything he actually wrote here.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta reads restraint as the mind itself, its fires as sparks that scorch up longing before it hardens into craving. The second offering becomes a secret teaching: enjoyment is sought precisely to burn away the deep impression of separateness between enjoyer and enjoyed, grounded in his own earlier statement that no thing enjoyed stands apart from the one who enjoys it.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara maps the two offerings onto two stations of life. Lifelong celibate students dissolve the senses in the fires of restraint, standing fixed with restraint as their governing discipline; householders, by scriptural leave, take the senses as fires and offer sound and the rest into them, remaining unattached even while enjoying what is lawfully theirs.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Read together, the two extant fuller commentaries converge on a practical point that reads plainly to a modern ear: withdrawal and disciplined engagement are not competing virtues but two roads to the identical inner work, the removal of liking and disliking. Neither commentator ranks one path as intrinsically higher; each simply describes the discipline proper to the practitioner's own situation.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
A Seeker Asks
If both withdrawing from the world and enjoying it can be called sacrifice, how do I know which one is actually asked of me, and how would I know if I were only fooling myself either way?
The verse itself does not rank one path above the other; it simply describes two real disciplines, drawing the senses in or meeting their objects without craving. Nothing in what survives from these commentators tells you that one is required and the other forbidden.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya
What distinguishes real sacrifice from mere behavior, on either path, is the same test: has liking and disliking actually left the encounter, or are you only performing withdrawal, or only performing detached enjoyment, while craving still runs underneath.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Sridhara's picture of two stations of life is a useful check: notice what your own situation actually supports and asks of you, rather than importing a discipline that belongs to a different station, and let unattachment, not outward form, be the measure you return to.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Contemplation
Notice today whether you are, in this moment, holding something back or letting something in. Either is workable. The only question worth asking underneath it is whether liking or disliking has quietly taken hold of the choice, or whether you are free enough to let the moment be exactly what it is.
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.