No one who has genuinely done good is ever lost, in this world or beyond it.
It is easy to hear an unfinished practice as a wasted one. Krishna's answer to that fear is direct and unqualified: what was truly done in faith does not come to ruin merely because it was not completed.
The Blessed Lord said: There is no ruin for him, not in this world and not in the next. No one who has done good, dear one, ever comes to a bad end.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Arjuna has just asked what happens to the seeker who takes up yoga in faith and falls away from it before reaching the end, unsteadied in mind, arriving nowhere. He fears such a person is ruined twice over, lost from this world and unfit for any other. Krishna answers this fear before anything else, addressing him as Partha, and the answer is unqualified: no ruin awaits that person, not here, not hereafter.
The teaching
The reason Krishna gives is a single line, and it is meant to carry the whole weight of the reassurance: no one who does good ever comes to a bad end. Where the sources speak to it, ruin here would mean falling to a birth lower than the one already held, or standing condemned for having dropped a duty once taken up; ruin there would mean hell, or some degraded course after death. Both are denied outright. The seeker who entered the practice with genuine faith counts, on this reasoning, as a doer of good, and that classification is not undone by the practice ending before its goal. Some of the sources that speak on this verse stop close to this bare claim and its immediate grammar. Krishna's own choice of address, calling Arjuna by a word that properly means father and is extended in affection to a son or a cherished pupil, is itself part of the teaching: the comfort is given in the very shape of the sentence, not only in what it states. Others reach further, arguing from wider doctrine that faith and truth already gained, or the deed's own inherently auspicious nature, are sufficient on their own, even without the completed practice, to secure the seeker's standing. And on one source the record is honestly empty. Madhva is not recorded as having commented on this verse at all, and no attempt is made here to supply, in his name, what he did not in fact say. What can be offered instead is only a clearly marked extension from his broader teaching, never presented as his own settled word.
The doubt that rises
If a genuinely faithful effort cannot be lost even when it is not finished, what exactly is doing the preserving: the deed itself, the faith behind it, or something beyond the seeker's control entirely? And how far can this reassurance be trusted to reach, into practices barely begun, or only into practices seriously pursued and then interrupted?
Where the paths divide
Read from Shankara's brief, transitional gloss on this exact verse.
What survives of Shankara's own comment here is compact: ruin would mean only a lower birth, and that fate does not reach one who has slipped from yoga, since no doer of good goes to a wretched course. He lingers briefly on the tenderness of Krishna's address before handing the question of what actually becomes of the fallen seeker to the verses that follow. On the fidelity of the record, this verse's role in his reading is to clear the fear, not to develop the fuller argument.
Read from Ramanuja's precise but likewise compact gloss.
Ramanuja widens the scope of what is denied: not only a fall to a lower state, but the failure to gain, or the unwanted gaining of, either the enjoyments of heaven or the higher experience of Brahman. The discipline this seeker undertook was itself of the supremely auspicious kind, and that nature secures him against ill fortune at any time, past, present, or future. As with Shankara, the extant comment then defers to what comes next.
Named honestly as a silence in the source record, not filled by invention.
The available record states plainly that Madhva offers no comment on this verse. Nothing in his own voice can responsibly be reported here. What follows is offered only as a clearly labeled, conditional extension of his wider teaching, not as his word: on such a reading, one might expect the fallen seeker's continuity to be secured by the Lord Hari's just sanction over a dependent soul's earned standing, rather than by any independent power in the deed itself. This is a guess about what he might have said, flagged as such, and no more.
Read from Abhinavagupta's single dense, surviving paragraph.
For Abhinavagupta, everything rests on one point: the fallen yogi's faith is not destroyed. He draws the contrast deliberately, holding this durable good against the fruit of an ordinary rite like the Agnishtoma, which is spent once it has been enjoyed. Faith, on his reading, endures where ritual fruit does not. A fuller Kashmir Shaiva reading connecting this to the imperishability of consciousness itself would be a natural extension, but it is not something this surviving fragment itself develops.
Read from Sridhara's clause-by-clause gloss and his attention to Krishna's chosen word.
Sridhara walks the verse almost phrase by phrase: ruin here is the fall that comes from failing on both sides at once, ruin there is hell outright, and neither touches this doer of the auspicious. He gives particular weight to the word of address, tata, reading it as spoken in the world's own affectionate manner, and holds that the whole reassuring arc which follows should be received in that same warm register, comfort offered before content.
Read from Madhusudana's fuller, technically argued comment.
Madhusudana builds the most developed extant case: answering a precise scriptural worry about the fate of one who dies mid-inquiry into the Vedanta, he draws on the five-fire teaching, where faith and truth already gained substitute for a rite left unfinished, to argue such a seeker is already fit for the world of Brahman. Renunciation, faith, truth, and inquiry into Brahman, he holds, are each independently sufficient means, so joined together in one seeker they cannot fail.
The extant sources agree on the floor, that nothing genuinely done in faith is erased by an unfinished practice, but they do not agree on what exactly is doing the preserving: an inherent quality in the deed, the endurance of faith itself, or independent sufficiency through partial means already gained. And on one source, Madhva, the honest record is silence; this page marks that silence rather than quietly filling it, and leaves it open rather than resolved.
A question to carry
If some part of your own practice once felt sincere and is now unfinished or set aside, what would change in how you hold it if you trusted, even provisionally, that it was not thereby erased?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
Rest, for now, in the floor every extant voice here shares: what you have truly done in faith stands, whether or not you have yet reached where it was leading. What comes next, the verses ahead will say.
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.
Arjuna has just voiced the fear that a seeker who falls from yoga is lost like a torn cloud, with no footing in either world; this verse is Krishna's first and most direct word against that fear, opening the four-and-a-half verse arc that follows.
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 fear named is precise: a seeker who falls short is not thereby lost from this world or the next.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
The verse is Krishna's direct answer to a fear Arjuna has just voiced: that the seeker who sets out on yoga and falls short before the goal is lost from both worlds, with no firm footing anywhere. Krishna meets this head-on, addressing Arjuna as Partha and declaring, without qualification, that no destruction awaits such a person, neither here nor hereafter.
The reason given is precise too: no one who does good ever comes to a bad end, and this seeker qualifies as such a doer.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
Where the sources address it, 'here' is read as slipping to a birth lower than the one already held, or being blamed for having dropped enjoined duty; 'there' is read as hell or a degraded rebirth. Both are ruled out for the fallen yogi, whatever spiritual ground he had actually gained.
The word of address itself carries comfort, spoken the way a father, or the world, speaks to a beloved child.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
The single reason given is treated by every commentator with extant material as the load-bearing line of the verse: no one who does good ever comes to a bad end. The fallen seeker qualifies as a doer of good because he genuinely entered the practice with faith, and that status is not undone by an interrupted practice.
Where a source is genuinely silent, as with Madhva here, the honest answer is silence, not an invented reading.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara and Śrīdhara’s words
More than one source dwells on the address 'tata,' reading it as deliberately tender: a word that properly means father but is extended to a son or a beloved pupil, chosen here so that Krishna comforts Arjuna in the very grammar of the sentence, not only in its content.
This verse clears the ground; what is actually gained and where it leads is the work of the verses still to come.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 1 others’ words
Both extant, fuller readings treat this verse as an opening rather than a closed statement: it clears the fear first, so that the following verses can describe, without that fear in the way, what actually becomes of the one who fell.
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 'destruction' as covering two fears together, sin itself and the failure to gain (or unwanted gaining of) either heavenly enjoyment or the experience of Brahman. Because the discipline undertaken is itself of the supremely auspicious form, neither fear can be realized in any of the three times; the verse's own extant comment then defers the positive account to what follows.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva's commentary is silent on this verse; the source explicitly states he offers no comment. Nothing in his own voice can be reported here. On a clearly conditional extension of his general Dvaita principles, one might expect a reading centered on the Lord Hari's just sanction preserving a dependent soul's earned standing, but this is flagged as extrapolation, not as anything Madhva actually says about 6.40.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara glosses the verse almost clause by clause: ruin here is the fall from failing on both sides, ruin there is hell outright, and neither belongs to this doer of the auspicious. He gives special weight to the word 'tata,' read as spoken in the world's own affectionate manner, and holds that the whole arc of reassurance that follows should be heard in that same warm register.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Madhusudana's fuller, technical reading answers a precise scriptural worry about the fate of one who dies mid-inquiry into the Vedanta, using the five-fire teaching to argue that faith and truth already gained make such a seeker fit for the world of Brahman without the completed rite, since renunciation, faith, truth, and inquiry into Brahman are each independently sufficient and cannot fail when joined together.
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 whatever in your own practice feels unfinished, abandoned, or interrupted somewhere along the way. Notice the fear underneath the unfinished thing: that it was wasted, that stopping erased it. Let this verse answer that fear directly, not as a general comfort but as a specific claim about the fate of a specific person: the one who genuinely tried and did not finish. Whatever good you have actually done does not require your finishing it to remain real.
So let this be enough for now: what you have genuinely done in faith is not erased by its interruption, and you may rest in that before asking what comes 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
he verse is Krishna's direct answer to a fear Arjuna has just voiced: that the seeker who sets out on yoga and falls short before the goal is lost from both worlds, with no firm footing anywhere. Krishna meets this head-on, addressing Arjuna as Partha and declaring, without qualification, that no destruction awaits such a person, neither here nor hereafter.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Where the sources address it, 'here' is read as slipping to a birth lower than the one already held, or being blamed for having dropped enjoined duty; 'there' is read as hell or a degraded rebirth. Both are ruled out for the fallen yogi, whatever spiritual ground he had actually gained.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The single reason given is treated by every commentator with extant material as the load-bearing line of the verse: no one who does good ever comes to a bad end. The fallen seeker qualifies as a doer of good because he genuinely entered the practice with faith, and that status is not undone by an interrupted practice.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
More than one source dwells on the address 'tata,' reading it as deliberately tender: a word that properly means father but is extended to a son or a beloved pupil, chosen here so that Krishna comforts Arjuna in the very grammar of the sentence, not only in its content.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Both extant, fuller readings treat this verse as an opening rather than a closed statement: it clears the fear first, so that the following verses can describe, without that fear in the way, what actually becomes of the one who fell.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara's extant comment on this verse itself is brief: ruin would mean a lower birth, and that does not come to one who has slipped from yoga because no doer of good goes to a wretched course. He glosses the address 'tata' and then hands the question of positive outcome to the verses that follow, rather than developing a full argument within 6.40 itself.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja reads 'destruction' as covering two fears together, sin itself and the failure to gain (or unwanted gaining of) either heavenly enjoyment or the experience of Brahman. Because the discipline undertaken is itself of the supremely auspicious form, neither fear can be realized in any of the three times; the verse's own extant comment then defers the positive account to what follows.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva's commentary is silent on this verse; the source explicitly states he offers no comment. Nothing in his own voice can be reported here. On a clearly conditional extension of his general Dvaita principles, one might expect a reading centered on the Lord Hari's just sanction preserving a dependent soul's earned standing, but this is flagged as extrapolation, not as anything Madhva actually says about 6.40.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta's surviving fragment centers the whole assurance on one point: the fallen yogi's faith is not destroyed. He contrasts this durable good with the fruit of an ordinary rite like the Agnishtoma, which is spent once enjoyed; faith, on his reading, does not wear away in the same manner. Extending this toward a fuller Kashmir Shaiva metaphysics of imperishable consciousness would be natural but goes beyond what this fragment itself states.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara glosses the verse almost clause by clause: ruin here is the fall from failing on both sides, ruin there is hell outright, and neither belongs to this doer of the auspicious. He gives special weight to the word 'tata,' read as spoken in the world's own affectionate manner, and holds that the whole arc of reassurance that follows should be heard in that same warm register.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Madhusudana's fuller, technical reading answers a precise scriptural worry about the fate of one who dies mid-inquiry into the Vedanta, using the five-fire teaching to argue that faith and truth already gained make such a seeker fit for the world of Brahman without the completed rite, since renunciation, faith, truth, and inquiry into Brahman are each independently sufficient and cannot fail when joined together.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
I began a spiritual practice once, with real sincerity, and let it lapse. Was that effort wasted, and does this verse actually apply to someone as ordinary as me?
The verse's own reasoning is not about how far you got; it is about what kind of thing you did. Both extant readings that develop the point agree: you qualify as a doer of good because you genuinely entered the practice with faith, and that classification does not expire when the practice does.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Ramanuja's reading widens the reassurance further: what is denied is not only a fall to a lower state but also the failure to gain any fruit at all, of either kind, heavenly or higher. The discipline you actually performed was, in its own nature, of the auspicious kind, and that nature is not retroactively cancelled by its interruption.
Rāmānujācārya
Where the record is honestly thin or silent, as with Madhva here, the right response is not to manufacture false certainty but to rest on what does survive: two independent commentators, reading the verse from different premises, land on the same floor. Nothing genuinely done in faith is erased by an unfinished road.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Contemplation
Sit for a moment with whatever in your own practice feels unfinished, abandoned, or interrupted somewhere along the way. Notice the fear underneath the unfinished thing: that it was wasted, that stopping erased it. Let this verse answer that fear directly, not as a general comfort but as a specific claim about the fate of a specific person: the one who genuinely tried and did not finish. Whatever good you have actually done does not require your finishing it to remain real.
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.