Not every strength is his, and not every wanting; only the kind that needs nothing and stays within what is right.
It would be easy to hear 'I am the strength of the strong' as a blessing on force itself. Krishna narrows it in the same breath: the strength that is his is the strength that craves nothing and clings to nothing, and the desire that is his stays inside dharma.
Of the strong, I am the strength that carries no craving and no clinging in it. And in every creature, I am the wanting that stays inside what is right.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Krishna is still walking through the places he may be found in the world, fragrance, fire, life, austerity. Now he turns from the elements to something closer at hand: the strength you carry, and the desire that moves in you. But he is exact about which part of each he means.
The teaching
You have a strength: the plain power that keeps your body going and lets you do your own work. That strength is him, but only in its unhungry form, free of the craving that reaches for what you do not have and free of the clinging that grips what you already hold. The same strength, once it starts running on greed or grasping, is no longer the strength he names as his. It is the same with desire. The wanting in you that stays inside what is right, that does not break the moral order, is also him. The sources that comment on this verse in their own words keep the example plain: the hunger that keeps a body alive, the desire that serves a marriage and its children. Desire, in other words, is not the enemy here. What is excluded is only its grasping, dark, or overreaching shape. Not every strand of this chapter's commentary speaks in its own voice on this exact line, though; two of the six great readers on record here address it only by extension from what they wrote one verse earlier, and that gap is worth sitting with rather than papering over.
The doubt that rises
If the very word for desire that names bondage elsewhere in the Gita returns here as a form of God, how do I actually tell, today, which of my own wants are the clean kind this verse claims and which have already hardened into the craving it excludes?
Where the paths divide
Read as an exact rule for what deserves meditation.
Shankara states the plain sense and stops: strength free of craving and clinging, desire narrowed to bare bodily need. Madhusudana carries the thought further with a small grammatical claim, that the joining 'and' really works like 'but', turned around in order, so the line reads: I am strength, but only the strength free of desire and attachment. This is a rule about what is fit to hold in the mind as the Lord's own form, not a flat pair of equal claims.
Honestly marked as an extension, not Ramanuja's own words on this verse.
Ramanuja's stated position sits one verse earlier, at 7.8, where he treats 7.8 through 7.11 as a single passage: every attribute of the world has arisen from the Lord, is subordinate to him, and abides in him as his own mode. Carried forward, though not in his own recorded words, the clean strength and the lawful desire named here would be his attributes too, showing him present as the inner self of exactly their rightly-ordered portion.
Honestly marked as an extension, not Madhva's own words on this verse.
Madhva's substantial comment likewise sits at 7.8, treating 7.8 through 7.12 as one unit: the Lord rules every natural quality and its bearer, present here for worship, wholly independent while everything else depends on him. Carried forward, the pure strength and the dharma-bound desire of 7.11 would be marked as fit for worship precisely because they are the rightly-ordered portion, dependent throughout on him as their ground.
Honestly marked as an extension, since the extant fragment stops one verse short.
Abhinavagupta's surviving words address 7.10, not 7.11. Elsewhere in this chapter his method is to call what is native to a thing pure, and to treat impurity as always an import from outside. Extended, though not stated by him here, craving and clinging would be a contraction laid over the self's own native, self-luminous freedom, and the clean strength and lawful desire would be that same freedom simply showing itself undisturbed.
Read against the three gunas, in concrete, householder terms.
Sridhara maps the verse onto rajas and tamas directly: desire belongs to the strand of passion, clinging to the strand of darkness, and the strength Krishna claims is the sattvic power simply to do one's own work. He names the lawful desire without embarrassment, the wish toward one's own spouse for the sake of children, and insists it is not condemned, only its passionate and dark distortions are. The ordered wanting is itself, on this reading, the Lord's glory made visible in an ordinary household.
Read as a working, everyday test.
Carried into a more contemporary register, Madhusudana's careful separation of desire from clinging becomes a practical question to put to any drive in yourself: does it still leave you its master, staying inside what is measured and right, or has it quietly made you its slave, pushing you past that line? The clean strength that needs nothing under hard work, and the wanting that stays lawful, are what this verse marks as where God is in you; everything past that line belongs to bondage.
All six readings agree the claim is narrow: only the clean strength and the rightly-ordered desire are his. They differ in how far that claim can be pushed, and, honestly, in how much can be said at all. Two of the acaryas gathered here, Ramanuja and Madhva, leave no words of their own on this exact verse, folding it into the passage that begins at 7.8; a third, Abhinavagupta, addresses the verse just before this one and stops there. What is offered for those three here is clearly marked as extension, not their confirmed word, and this page leaves that gap open rather than smoothing it over into false certainty.
A question to carry
When you notice a want rising in you today, can you tell, honestly and without flattering yourself, whether it still keeps you its master inside what is right, or whether it has already made you its servant?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
May the strength you spend today ask nothing back once the work is done, and may the wanting that moves in you stay close enough to what is right that it remains yours to hold, and never you its.
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 is still counting the places he may be found in the world; here he turns from fragrance and fire to something nearer, the strength and the wanting that move inside you.
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.
Krishna claims the strength of the strong, but only the strength free of craving for what is not yet had and clinging to what is already held.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Madhusūdana · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Madhusūdana, and 1 others’ words
Krishna claims strength, but narrowly. He is the strength of the strong only where it is free of kama, craving for what is not yet had, and raga, the clinging relish for what is already held. The strength that simply sustains a body and carries out one's own duty is his; the strength that becomes fuel for grasping and greed is not.
The very word for desire that elsewhere names bondage returns here in an approved form: the wanting that stays inside dharma is his own presence, not his opposite.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Madhusūdana · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Madhusūdana, and 1 others’ words
The two excluded terms are read with care so the line stays exact rather than vague. Desire looks toward what is absent and wants it to come; clinging (also called thirst) looks toward what is already gained and dreads its loss. Strength is spiritually clean only when neither of these two is driving it.
Named concretely, that lawful wanting is nothing exotic: the hunger that keeps a body alive, the desire that serves a marriage and its children.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
The very same word, kama, that was just stripped out of strength returns a moment later in an approved form. Krishna is also the desire in creatures that does not run against dharma. So desire as such is not the enemy here; what is excluded is desire in its grasping, self-seeking shape, and what is claimed is desire kept inside the moral order.
For two of the six acaryas gathered here, no words of their own survive on this exact verse; what is offered instead is honestly flagged as an extension of what they wrote at the verse just before.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara and Śrīdhara’s words
Where the sources give concrete instances, they name the same two: the desire for the food and drink a body needs to live, and the desire toward one's own spouse for the begetting of children. These are offered not as grudging exceptions but as ordinary, everyday places where a lawful wanting is already the Lord's presence.
The test the verse leaves you with is practical: does this strength, this wanting, still keep you its master, or has it quietly made you its slave?
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Madhusūdana · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Madhusūdana, and 1 others’ words
Underneath both halves lies one and the same test: only the sattvic, rightly-ordered portion of a person's power and longing is claimed as divine; the portion that has hardened into craving or clinging belongs to bondage and is not owned as the Lord's own form, whatever extension of that same test each further school then goes on to draw.
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 own words on record here belong to 7.8, where the whole 7.8-7.11 passage is handled as one unit: every distinct attribute of the world has arisen from the Lord, is subordinate to him, and abides in him as his mode. Extended to this verse, though not stated by him at 7.11 itself, the clean strength and the dharma-bound desire would be read as the Lord's own attributes, showing him present as the inner self of exactly their rightly-ordered portion.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva's stated comment likewise sits at 7.8, treating 7.8-7.12 as one passage: the Lord rules every natural quality and the elements that bear it, is named here for worship, and is wholly independent while all else depends on him. Extended to 7.11, though not his own words on this verse, the pure strength and dharma-bound desire would be marked off as fit objects of worship precisely because they are the rightly-ordered portion, dependent throughout on the Lord as their ground.
Shaiva, in their fuller words
Abhinavagupta's extant fragment addresses 7.10, not 7.11, in its own words, so nothing of his is on record for this specific verse. On a reasoned extension of his stated method elsewhere in the chapter, where what is native to a thing is pure and impurity is always an import, one would expect craving and clinging to be read as a contraction laid over the self's native, self-luminous freedom, while the clean strength and dharma-bound desire would be read as that same freedom showing itself undisturbed.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara reads both halves against the three gunas: desire belongs to rajas, clinging to tamas, and the strength Krishna claims is the sattvic power to do one's own duty, nothing more. He is concrete about the approved desire too, the wish toward one's own spouse for begetting children, and insists desire as such is never condemned, only its passionate and dark distortions; the pure, ordered desire is itself the Lord's glory made visible in an ordinary life.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Read forward into a more contemporary register, Madhusudana's technical separation of desire and clinging supplies a working test: ask, of any drive in yourself, whether it still keeps you its master within what is measured and right, or whether it has quietly made you its slave. The clean strength that asks for nothing under hard work, and the desire that stays lawful and ordered, are what the verse marks as divine; everything past that line belongs to bondage.
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, once today, a moment of plain strength, effort spent simply because the task in front of you needs doing, asking nothing back and clinging to nothing once it is done. And notice, once, a want that stays inside what is right, hunger before a meal, say, wanting nothing more than what sustains you. Rest your attention there for a breath. That plain, unhungry place is what this verse is pointing at.
So welcome, in your hardest hour of work, the plain strength that asks for nothing back; and keep your wanting close enough to what is right that it remains yours to hold, and never the other way around.
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 claims strength, but narrowly. He is the strength of the strong only where it is free of kama, craving for what is not yet had, and raga, the clinging relish for what is already held. The strength that simply sustains a body and carries out one's own duty is his; the strength that becomes fuel for grasping and greed is not.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
The two excluded terms are read with care so the line stays exact rather than vague. Desire looks toward what is absent and wants it to come; clinging (also called thirst) looks toward what is already gained and dreads its loss. Strength is spiritually clean only when neither of these two is driving it.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
The very same word, kama, that was just stripped out of strength returns a moment later in an approved form. Krishna is also the desire in creatures that does not run against dharma. So desire as such is not the enemy here; what is excluded is desire in its grasping, self-seeking shape, and what is claimed is desire kept inside the moral order.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Where the sources give concrete instances, they name the same two: the desire for the food and drink a body needs to live, and the desire toward one's own spouse for the begetting of children. These are offered not as grudging exceptions but as ordinary, everyday places where a lawful wanting is already the Lord's presence.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Underneath both halves lies one and the same test: only the sattvic, rightly-ordered portion of a person's power and longing is claimed as divine; the portion that has hardened into craving or clinging belongs to bondage and is not owned as the Lord's own form, whatever extension of that same test each further school then goes on to draw.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara states the plain sense directly, strength free of craving and clinging, desire confined to bare bodily upkeep, and the source on record stops there, noting only that there is more without stating it. Madhusudana carries the same reading further with technical exactness: the joining 'and' is really 'but' in disguised order, so the verse reads 'I am strength, but only the strength free of desire and attachment', a rule for what is fit to meditate on as the Lord, not a flat list of two equal claims.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja's own words on record here belong to 7.8, where the whole 7.8-7.11 passage is handled as one unit: every distinct attribute of the world has arisen from the Lord, is subordinate to him, and abides in him as his mode. Extended to this verse, though not stated by him at 7.11 itself, the clean strength and the dharma-bound desire would be read as the Lord's own attributes, showing him present as the inner self of exactly their rightly-ordered portion.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva's stated comment likewise sits at 7.8, treating 7.8-7.12 as one passage: the Lord rules every natural quality and the elements that bear it, is named here for worship, and is wholly independent while all else depends on him. Extended to 7.11, though not his own words on this verse, the pure strength and dharma-bound desire would be marked off as fit objects of worship precisely because they are the rightly-ordered portion, dependent throughout on the Lord as their ground.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta's extant fragment addresses 7.10, not 7.11, in its own words, so nothing of his is on record for this specific verse. On a reasoned extension of his stated method elsewhere in the chapter, where what is native to a thing is pure and impurity is always an import, one would expect craving and clinging to be read as a contraction laid over the self's native, self-luminous freedom, while the clean strength and dharma-bound desire would be read as that same freedom showing itself undisturbed.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara reads both halves against the three gunas: desire belongs to rajas, clinging to tamas, and the strength Krishna claims is the sattvic power to do one's own duty, nothing more. He is concrete about the approved desire too, the wish toward one's own spouse for begetting children, and insists desire as such is never condemned, only its passionate and dark distortions; the pure, ordered desire is itself the Lord's glory made visible in an ordinary life.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Read forward into a more contemporary register, Madhusudana's technical separation of desire and clinging supplies a working test: ask, of any drive in yourself, whether it still keeps you its master within what is measured and right, or whether it has quietly made you its slave. The clean strength that asks for nothing under hard work, and the desire that stays lawful and ordered, are what the verse marks as divine; everything past that line belongs to bondage.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If Krishna is the strength of the strong and the desire in every creature, does that mean all my ambition and all my wanting are already sacred, whatever shape they take?
No. The verse draws a narrow, careful line inside both strength and desire. What is claimed is only the portion free of craving and clinging, and only the portion of desire that stays inside dharma. The rest is named just as clearly as not his.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The test the sources give is practical, not abstract. Strength that simply sustains your body and your work is clean; strength recruited to grasp and to outdo others is not. Desire for what the body needs, or for what your own rightful life calls for, is clean; desire that overruns what is right is not.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śaṅkarācārya
So the verse is not a blanket blessing on every ambition and every want. It is closer to a mirror: hold your own strength and your own wanting up against it, and see how much of each is the plain, unhungry kind, and how much has already hardened into craving.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Contemplation
Notice, once today, a moment of plain strength, effort spent simply because the task in front of you needs doing, asking nothing back and clinging to nothing once it is done. And notice, once, a want that stays inside what is right, hunger before a meal, say, wanting nothing more than what sustains you. Rest your attention there for a breath. That plain, unhungry place is what this verse is pointing at.
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.