Every mood you feel has its root in him; none of it holds him.
Calm or restless or dull, whatever rises in you traces back to one source. This verse corrects the fear that, because it comes from him, it must also touch or define him.
Every state that arises in a creature, whether clear, restless, or dull, know that it comes from me alone. But I am not in them; they are in me.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Krishna has just been naming himself through a string of subtle qualities, the taste in water, the light in sun and moon. Here he gathers that whole method into a single, general rule that covers not just the elements of the outer world but every state that arises within a living being.
The teaching
Think of everything that ever rises in you as falling into three families. The clear kind: calm, self-restraint, the steadiness that lets you see plainly. The driven kind: passion, pride, the restless push toward more. The heavy kind: sorrow, dullness, the drag that makes everything feel like too much. These are the three gunas, sattva, rajas, and tamas, and Krishna says plainly that whatever state arises, of any of the three, arises from him alone. There is no second source for any of it, not even for the moods you would rather not claim. Then comes the line that keeps this from becoming strange or troubling: I am not in them; they are in me. The relationship runs one way only. The states depend on him for their very being, the way an effect depends on its cause; he depends on nothing that they could give back. Several commentators reach for the same picture: a rope, in dim light, can look like a snake, and the appearance of the snake draws its whole visibility from the rope, yet nothing that belongs to the snake, its danger, its shape, its motion, ever reaches the rope itself. So too your moods draw their being and their shining from him, while he lends them only that, being and light, and stays untouched by whatever shape they seem to take.
The doubt that rises
If the calm states and the driven states and the dull states all come from him alike, greed and sorrow and delusion right along with steadiness and clarity, doesn't that make him the author of what is wrong in you, and doesn't it erase the difference between acting rightly and acting wrongly?
Where the paths divide
Read through the image of a rope mistaken for a snake.
The states are read as merely imagined upon the one real ground, exactly as a snake is imagined on a rope glimpsed in poor light. Because the imagined thing has no standing of its own apart from the ground it is superimposed on, its qualities and its faults cannot reach back to stain the ground. What looks like Krishna's involvement in the darker states is, on this reading, only a matter of name and of seeming, never a real modification of what he is. Greed and sorrow, however real they feel to the one who has them, never touch the rope beneath the appearance.
Read through the bond of a body to its indwelling self.
Here the states are not merely imagined; they are real, and really his, standing to him as a body stands to the self that lives within it. A body depends entirely on its self to exist, while the self depends on nothing the body offers back. Krishna's relationship to every state that arises is this same one-directional dependence, except that where an ordinary self at least draws some use from its body, he draws none. His whole purpose in his creation is play, not need.
Read through Madhva's commentary, which treats this verse together with several before it as one continuous passage.
On this reading the states and the beings that carry them are genuinely real and genuinely distinct from Krishna, not imagined away. He is not present in them the way a craftsman's incidental skill marks the cloth he weaves; he works deliberately within the very properties of things. Madhva's own gloss on the verse's closing words is preserved directly: he is not one who stands by leaning on another, for the whole world rests on him, while he himself rests on nothing at all.
Read from a brief surviving fragment; kept close to what it actually says.
The fragment attributed to Abhinavagupta here is compact: sattva and the rest are made of the Blessed One, but he is not made of them, and the one whose own being is made of him comes to know everything by way of him rather than losing himself sorting the world's many separate things. This recognition, the fragment says, belongs only to the rare soul whose inner organ has been favored by a descent of grace after many births have ripened into evenness. A fuller reading in terms of the self recovering its own unbounded nature would reach beyond what this fragment supports, and is offered here only as a clearly marked, conditional extension, not as the master's own further words.
Read as the deliberate close of a chain of self-naming.
Sridhara reads this as the last link in a chain Krishna opened several verses back: I am the taste, the pure scent, the seed, the strength, and now every state as well. The pure, passionate, and dark states all rise by a being's own past action, yet all stand entirely within Krishna's sway, never he within theirs. He calls this the very flavor of Vasudeva, being, awareness, and bliss, filling every state as its ground and remaining unchanged by every one of them.
Read as a general architecture: one ground, many appearances.
Set inside its wider Advaita frame, the verse reads as a single claim about appearance and ground: what shows up as many different moods and conditions draws its entire apparent reality from one unchanging source, and that source is never colored by what appears on it, exactly as a rope remains a rope beneath whatever shape a startled eye mistakes it for.
All six readings agree the dependence runs one way, the states resting on Krishna while nothing in them holds him. They part on how real to take the states themselves. Are they merely imagined, with no standing of their own, so that nothing about them could ever really touch him? Are they his real body, dependent yet actual? Are they fully real and fully distinct, with him working deliberately inside their very properties? Is grasping any of this a rare recognition reserved for the ripened few? That fork, between an appearance with no standing and a reality that is simply, always, dependent, stays open here.
A question to carry
The next time a mood you don't like rises in you, greed, grief, dullness, where do you let your attention rest: on the mood itself, or on whatever it is that holds the mood up and yet stays untouched by it?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
Whatever rises in you today, calm or restless or heavy, has its root in a ground that none of it reaches. Let your eye pass through the weather to what holds the sky, and rest there.
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.
It closes the short passage where Krishna named himself the taste in water and the light in the sun, turning those samples into one rule that covers every state of every being.
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.
Gather the whole field of moods, calm and restless and dull alike, under three headings, and trace every one of them back to him as their only source.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhva · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 3 others’ words
Krishna gathers everything that arises in any creature under three headings, sattvic states like calm and self-restraint, rajasic states like passion and pride, tamasic states like sorrow and dullness, and traces all of them back to himself alone. There is no second source outside him from which anything, however small or dark, could instead have come.
He gives the states their being but is never caught in them the way you are caught in your own moods; they rest on him, he never leans on them.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhva · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 3 others’ words
The verse then draws one careful, one-directional relationship and the commentators agree the two halves do not cancel each other: he is not in them, they are in him. The states depend on him for their very being; he depends on nothing they could offer back.
He can give rise to all of it and stay unstained, as a rope lends an imagined snake its whole appearance yet takes on nothing that belongs to the snake.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
Several readings reach for the same picture to explain how a source can give rise to something without being changed by it: a rope lending an imagined snake its whole appearance while remaining wholly unstained by anything belonging to the snake. So the states shine and exist only through him, while he lends them only his own being and light.
This closes the chain of self-naming begun several verses earlier: he is the ground of every state without becoming any of them.
Across Advaita, Bhakti, DvaitaŚaṅkara · Śrīdhara · MadhvaIn Śaṅkara, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
Read in its place in the chapter, this verse closes the short passage that began with Krishna naming himself the taste in water and the light in the sun. Those were sample cases; here he turns them into a single rule covering every state of every thing, the doctrinal seal on what came before.
Tracing a dark mood to its source is not the same as excusing it; you still choose which state to feed and which to let pass.
Across Advaita, ViśiṣṭādvaitaŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 1 others’ words
If even greed, sorrow, and delusion trace back to Krishna, a real doubt follows: does this make him the author of evil, and does it erase the difference between right and wrong action? The verse's own second half, that he is not in them, is exactly what the commentators point to as the answer, and it is a doubt worth carrying rather than resolving too quickly.
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 the relationship as body to indwelling self: the states are real, and really Krishna's own, the way a body is really the self's own body, arising from him and abiding in him. A body depends on its self to exist; the self depends on nothing the body offers. With Krishna there is not even the ordinary use a self draws from its body; his sole purpose in his creation is play, lila.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva, read through his comment anchored at 7.8 and carried forward, holds the states and their bearers to be genuinely real and genuinely distinct from Krishna, not imagined. He is not present in them as an incidental byproduct, the way a weaver's skill leaves a mark on cloth; he works deliberately within the very properties of things. His own gloss on 'I am not in them' is preserved directly: he is not one who stands by leaning on another, for the whole world rests on him, while he rests on nothing at all.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara reads the verse as the deliberate close of the chain of self-naming that opened several verses earlier, I am the taste, the pure scent, the seed, the strength, now the states as well. The pure, passionate, and dark states rise in beings by their own past action, yet stand entirely within Krishna's sway, never he within theirs. He names this the very flavor of Vasudeva, being, awareness, and bliss, filling all things as their ground, unchanged by any of them.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Madhusudana's architecture places this verse inside a larger Advaita frame that reads easily in modern terms: what appears as many diverse moods and conditions draws its apparent reality entirely from one unchanging ground, and the ground is never colored by what appears on it, exactly as a rope stays a rope beneath whatever shape the eye mistakes it for.
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, the next time a strong mood rises in you, calm or restless or heavy, that you did not manufacture it from nothing; it arose from a deeper ground than your own effort. Let your attention rest for a moment on that ground rather than on the mood's content. You are not asked to deny the feeling. You are asked to notice what holds it up.
So when greed or grief or quiet stillness rises in you today, let your eye pass through the mood to the ground that holds it, and rest there.
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 gathers everything that arises in any creature under three headings, sattvic states like calm and self-restraint, rajasic states like passion and pride, tamasic states like sorrow and dullness, and traces all of them back to himself alone. There is no second source outside him from which anything, however small or dark, could instead have come.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The verse then draws one careful, one-directional relationship and the commentators agree the two halves do not cancel each other: he is not in them, they are in him. The states depend on him for their very being; he depends on nothing they could offer back.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Several readings reach for the same picture to explain how a source can give rise to something without being changed by it: a rope lending an imagined snake its whole appearance while remaining wholly unstained by anything belonging to the snake. So the states shine and exist only through him, while he lends them only his own being and light.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Read in its place in the chapter, this verse closes the short passage that began with Krishna naming himself the taste in water and the light in the sun. Those were sample cases; here he turns them into a single rule covering every state of every thing, the doctrinal seal on what came before.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhvācārya
If even greed, sorrow, and delusion trace back to Krishna, a real doubt follows: does this make him the author of evil, and does it erase the difference between right and wrong action? The verse's own second half, that he is not in them, is exactly what the commentators point to as the answer, and it is a doubt worth carrying rather than resolving too quickly.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
The states are read as merely imagined upon the one real ground, the way a snake is imagined on a rope in dim light. Because they have no independent standing of their own, their qualities and their faults cannot reach the ground that supports them; the appearance of change belongs only to name and to seeming, never to the rope itself. Read this way, greed and sorrow no more stain Krishna than the imagined snake's poison could stain the rope beneath it.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja reads the relationship as body to indwelling self: the states are real, and really Krishna's own, the way a body is really the self's own body, arising from him and abiding in him. A body depends on its self to exist; the self depends on nothing the body offers. With Krishna there is not even the ordinary use a self draws from its body; his sole purpose in his creation is play, lila.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva, read through his comment anchored at 7.8 and carried forward, holds the states and their bearers to be genuinely real and genuinely distinct from Krishna, not imagined. He is not present in them as an incidental byproduct, the way a weaver's skill leaves a mark on cloth; he works deliberately within the very properties of things. His own gloss on 'I am not in them' is preserved directly: he is not one who stands by leaning on another, for the whole world rests on him, while he rests on nothing at all.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
The surviving fragment of Abhinavagupta's comment here is brief: sattva and the rest are made of the Blessed One, but he is not made of them, and one whose own being is made of him comes to know everything by way of him rather than getting lost sorting separate things. This is reached only by the rare soul whose inner organ has been favored by a descent of grace, ripened across many births. A fuller reading in terms of recognizing one's own unbounded nature, pratyabhijna, would extend beyond what the fragment itself states, and is offered here only as a flagged, conditional extension.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara reads the verse as the deliberate close of the chain of self-naming that opened several verses earlier, I am the taste, the pure scent, the seed, the strength, now the states as well. The pure, passionate, and dark states rise in beings by their own past action, yet stand entirely within Krishna's sway, never he within theirs. He names this the very flavor of Vasudeva, being, awareness, and bliss, filling all things as their ground, unchanged by any of them.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Madhusudana's architecture places this verse inside a larger Advaita frame that reads easily in modern terms: what appears as many diverse moods and conditions draws its apparent reality entirely from one unchanging ground, and the ground is never colored by what appears on it, exactly as a rope stays a rope beneath whatever shape the eye mistakes it for.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If my worst moods, my greed, my grief, my dullness, all come from the same source as my best ones, doesn't that make God responsible for what is wrong in me, and doesn't it excuse me from doing anything about it?
The verse traces every state without exception back to Krishna, since nothing exists outside him to be its source; that half of the claim is total and admits no exception. But the very next words are what keep this from becoming an excuse: he is not in them, not ruled by them, not identified with them. The states are his effect. They are not his character.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Being the source of a state is not the same as being answerable for it the way you are answerable for it. A body depends on its self to exist, Ramanuja notes, but a self is not thereby reduced to its body's condition; Krishna's relationship to the states in you works the same way, one-directional, and the direction runs from him to them, never back.
Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya
And nothing here erases the difference between right and wrong action. What the verse changes is where you place your attention, on the ground rather than on the passing weather, not what you are responsible for doing about the weather itself. You still choose which state to feed and which to let pass.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śaṅkarācārya
Contemplation
Notice, the next time a strong mood rises in you, calm or restless or heavy, that you did not manufacture it from nothing; it arose from a deeper ground than your own effort. Let your attention rest for a moment on that ground rather than on the mood's content. You are not asked to deny the feeling. You are asked to notice what holds it up.
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.