The reward you receive shares the nature of what you actually aimed at.
It is tempting to hear this as a verdict on other people's devotion. Read closer, it is a mirror: whatever you worship, bounded or unbounded, that is exactly what you will finally reach.
But the reward that comes to people of small understanding has an end. Those who worship the gods reach the gods; my own devotees reach me alone.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Krishna has just named even desire-driven devotees noble. Now he draws the distinction their nobility does not erase: what their worship can deliver, and what devotion to him alone can deliver, are not the same thing, and the difference is not his to apologize for.
The teaching
Two worshippers spend the same labor and arrive in two different places. Those of small understanding, worshipping the various gods, win a fruit that has an end; it is finite, and it perishes. Those devoted to Krishna win a fruit that does not end. The reason given is not complicated: you reach what you worship. The gods themselves are bounded beings, with a measured enjoyment and a measured span, so the worshipper who reaches them falls away together with them when that span runs out. Krishna has no beginning and no end, so devotion to him ripens into a fruit that shares that same endlessness. Calling this 'small understanding' is a diagnosis, not an insult: the aim was partial, not the effort. And Krishna's own hand is shown at work in both cases. He grants the fruit in every instance, including to worshippers of other deities; the limitation belongs entirely to what was asked for, never to any stinginess in the giving. Read this way, there is something closer to sorrow than rebuke running under the line, a plain sadness that so much devotion is spent for so little, when the very same devotion, redirected, would have delivered everything.
The doubt that rises
If Krishna is the one granting fruit in every case, why should devotion to a lesser deity be treated as a smaller thing at all, rather than simply a different, equally valid path to the same giver?
Where the paths divide
Read as diagnosis, with the deeper reason left to the next verse.
Shankara treats this verse as naming a consequence rather than issuing a threat: the very same effort is spent by both worshippers, yet only one of them takes refuge in the being capable of granting a reward without end. He does not explain here why refuge gets misplaced; that question is left open for what follows. What he does insist on is that the verse carries something like compassion in it, Krishna pointing out a hard road walked when an easier one stood open the whole time.
Read as a difference located wholly in the object of worship.
Ramanuja places the entire weight of the verse on what is actually worshipped. The gods are bounded, with a measured span, so reaching them means eventually falling away with them. Krishna's own devotees, recognizing that their acts of devotion are already devotion to Krishna, surrender any attachment to a bounded fruit and attain him alone, never to return, a promise he reads as already secured in the verse just ahead.
Read honestly as a gap in the record, not papered over.
No comment from Madhva survives on this exact verse, and this reading does not pretend otherwise. What can be offered is only a flagged extension: on a Dvaita reading, the gods would remain dependent beings even at the height of their power, while the Lord alone is independent and without end, so the asymmetry in fruit would track this deeper asymmetry in what is finally being reached. That extension is not Madhva's own recorded word.
Read through a combined passage covering four verses at once.
Abhinavagupta's surviving comment treats 7.20 through 7.23 as one continuous passage rather than remarking on each verse separately. Within it, minds narrowed by particular desire are said to worship a form of the Lord fitting that desire, and to receive a fruit bounded by their own latent impressions, while those aimed at the Lord himself receive him unbounded. Applied to this verse, the bounded fruit looks like an expression of the worshipper's own contracted aim rather than an outside penalty; a fuller claim, that reaching Krishna is reaching one's own unbounded awareness, would go beyond what the surviving passage itself argues.
Read as a plausible extension where the record itself is silent.
No comment from Sridhara on this specific verse is on file. Drawing only on how he reads verses nearby, a labeled extension suggests he would answer a natural charge of unfairness by insisting one attains the very being one worships: a bounded deity gives a bounded fruit by its own nature, not because the giver plays favorites. This should be weighed as an extrapolation, not as Sridhara's own word on 7.23.
Read as relocating the question from theology to discernment.
Madhusudana insists that every deity is, in truth, a form of Krishna, and that Krishna alone grants every fruit, in every case. What finally separates the two kinds of worshipper is not desire itself, since even Krishna's devotees may carry desire, but discernment: seeing or failing to see that underlying unity. Worship offered without that confusion ripens, in time, toward the fruit without end, even for a heart that still wants things.
All six readings agree that the fruit shares the nature of what was actually worshipped, and that Krishna's own generosity is not in question. They part on what explains the smallness itself: a matter of misplaced refuge for Shankara, of the deity's own boundedness for Ramanuja, of contracted desire for the Kashmir Saiva reading, of discernment for Madhusudana. And for two of the six masters on file here, Madhva and Sridhara, the honest fact is that no comment on this exact verse survives at all; what stands in their place is clearly labeled as extension, not as their word. That gap is left open rather than quietly filled.
A question to carry
Without judging yourself for it, can you name what your own devotion is actually reaching for today, and whether that thing has an end?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
So look honestly at where your devotion has been pointed, and notice that no greater effort is asked of you to redirect it, only a clearer aim. Turn the very same worship toward what does not end, and let the fruit, in its own time, share that endlessness.
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 called even desire-driven devotees noble; here he draws the sober distinction between what their devotion can deliver and what devotion to him alone delivers.
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 same labor is spent by both worshippers; only the destination, and so the durability of the fruit, differs.
Across Advaita, ViśiṣṭādvaitaŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 1 others’ words
The verse draws a sharp line between two kinds of worshippers and two kinds of results. Those of small understanding who worship the various gods win a fruit that has an end, finite and perishable; those devoted to Krishna win a fruit that does not end. The labor in both cases is the same. Only the destination differs.
The gods themselves are bounded beings, so reaching them is reaching something that will, in time, end.
Across Viśiṣṭādvaita, Advaita, Kashmir ŚaivaRāmānuja · Madhusūdana · AbhinavaguptaIn Rāmānuja, Madhusūdana, and 1 others’ words
The reason given is plain: you reach what you worship. The gods are themselves bounded beings, with a measured enjoyment and a measured span, so the worshipper who reaches them falls away together with them when that span ends. Krishna is without beginning or end, so the fruit of worshipping him takes on that same endlessness.
Smallness of understanding names a partial grasp of what was available, not a failure of sincerity or effort.
Across AdvaitaŚaṅkara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara and Madhusūdana’s words
Calling these worshippers of 'small understanding' is read as a diagnosis, not an insult. Their grasp of reality is partial: they aim their devotion at something bounded when something unbounded was equally available to them, for no greater cost in effort.
Krishna is shown granting fruit in every case; the limitation belongs to the aim, never to the giver.
Across Advaita, Kashmir ŚaivaŚaṅkara · Madhusūdana · AbhinavaguptaIn Śaṅkara, Madhusūdana, and 1 others’ words
The finitude of the lesser fruit is not read as any stinginess or partiality on Krishna's part. He is said to grant fruit in every case, including to worshippers of other deities. The smallness belongs to the aim, not to the giver.
Where a master's own comment on this verse does not survive, that gap is stated honestly rather than papered over with an invented reading.
Across Advaita, ViśiṣṭādvaitaŚaṅkara · RāmānujaIn Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja’s words
There is a note of compassion, almost lament, running under the verse: Krishna is shown pointing out how hard these worshippers labor for how little they finally receive, when the very same effort, differently aimed, would have delivered a fruit without end.
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 locates the whole difference in the object of worship. The gods are bounded beings with a measured span; reaching them means falling away with them. Krishna's devotees, recognizing that their acts of worship are already worship of Krishna, give up attachment to any bounded fruit and attain Krishna alone, never to return, a promise he treats as already secured by the verse that follows this one.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
No comment from Madhva survives on this verse. What is offered here is a flagged extrapolation only: on a Dvaita reading, the gods would remain dependent, finite beings even at the summit of their power, while the Lord alone is independent and without end, so the asymmetry in fruit would track this asymmetry in what is ultimately being reached. This is not Madhva's recorded word on 7.23.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
No comment from Sridhara on this specific verse is on record. What is offered is a labeled extrapolation drawn from his approach to neighboring verses: one attains the very being one worships, so a bounded deity yields a bounded fruit by its own nature, and this answers rather than raises a charge of unfairness against the giver. This paragraph should be weighed as a plausible extension, not as Sridhara's recorded word.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Read for its practical edge, Madhusudana's insistence that all deities are forms of Krishna and that Krishna alone grants every fruit relocates the entire question of finitude away from theology and onto discernment: the same worship, offered without the confusion of thinking the deity separate from Krishna, ripens toward the endless fruit even for a devotee who still carries desire, since desire itself is not the disqualifying factor, non-discernment is.
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, without judgment, where your own devotion is actually aimed today. Not where you say it is aimed, but where it goes when you are not watching it: toward a specific outcome, a specific relief, a specific person's approval. Let the noticing be enough for now. The verse does not ask you to stop wanting things. It asks you to see clearly what a given aim can and cannot finally deliver.
So look honestly at what your own devotion is reaching for today, and let the very same effort be turned, this time, toward what does not end.
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 draws a sharp line between two kinds of worshippers and two kinds of results. Those of small understanding who worship the various gods win a fruit that has an end, finite and perishable; those devoted to Krishna win a fruit that does not end. The labor in both cases is the same. Only the destination differs.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The reason given is plain: you reach what you worship. The gods are themselves bounded beings, with a measured enjoyment and a measured span, so the worshipper who reaches them falls away together with them when that span ends. Krishna is without beginning or end, so the fruit of worshipping him takes on that same endlessness.
Rāmānujācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Calling these worshippers of 'small understanding' is read as a diagnosis, not an insult. Their grasp of reality is partial: they aim their devotion at something bounded when something unbounded was equally available to them, for no greater cost in effort.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The finitude of the lesser fruit is not read as any stinginess or partiality on Krishna's part. He is said to grant fruit in every case, including to worshippers of other deities. The smallness belongs to the aim, not to the giver.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
There is a note of compassion, almost lament, running under the verse: Krishna is shown pointing out how hard these worshippers labor for how little they finally receive, when the very same effort, differently aimed, would have delivered a fruit without end.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara treats the verse as a statement of consequence rather than threat: the same effort is spent, but refuge is placed differently, and only one refuge is capable of granting a reward without end. He reads this as the diagnosis half of a two-verse unit, leaving the question of why refuge is misplaced to the following verse, and he hears in the line something closer to sorrow than rebuke.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja locates the whole difference in the object of worship. The gods are bounded beings with a measured span; reaching them means falling away with them. Krishna's devotees, recognizing that their acts of worship are already worship of Krishna, give up attachment to any bounded fruit and attain Krishna alone, never to return, a promise he treats as already secured by the verse that follows this one.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
No comment from Madhva survives on this verse. What is offered here is a flagged extrapolation only: on a Dvaita reading, the gods would remain dependent, finite beings even at the summit of their power, while the Lord alone is independent and without end, so the asymmetry in fruit would track this asymmetry in what is ultimately being reached. This is not Madhva's recorded word on 7.23.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta's surviving comment treats 7.20 through 7.23 as one passage: minds narrowed by particular desire worship a subordinate form of the Lord fitting that desire, and so receive a fruit bounded by their own latent impressions, while those whose aim is the Lord himself receive the Lord unbounded. Read into 7.23, this makes the lesser fruit's finitude an expression of the worshipper's own contracted aim rather than an external penalty; a fuller Kashmir Saiva claim, that reaching Krishna is reaching one's own unbounded awareness, is flagged here as extension beyond what the surviving passage argues.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
No comment from Sridhara on this specific verse is on record. What is offered is a labeled extrapolation drawn from his approach to neighboring verses: one attains the very being one worships, so a bounded deity yields a bounded fruit by its own nature, and this answers rather than raises a charge of unfairness against the giver. This paragraph should be weighed as a plausible extension, not as Sridhara's recorded word.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Read for its practical edge, Madhusudana's insistence that all deities are forms of Krishna and that Krishna alone grants every fruit relocates the entire question of finitude away from theology and onto discernment: the same worship, offered without the confusion of thinking the deity separate from Krishna, ripens toward the endless fruit even for a devotee who still carries desire, since desire itself is not the disqualifying factor, non-discernment is.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If Krishna grants the fruit in every case, even to worshippers of other gods, why call their devotion small and their reward less than mine?
The verse does not charge the giver with partiality. Shankara and Madhusudana both read the finitude as belonging to the aim, not to Krishna: he grants what is asked, and what is asked determines what can be received.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Ramanuja adds that the gods themselves are bounded, so reaching them is reaching something that will itself end; the fruit is not artificially shrunk, it simply shares the nature of its destination.
Rāmānujācārya
Where the record for a given master is silent, as it is here for Madhva and for Sridhara, the honest answer is that their fuller reasoning on this exact point is not preserved, and any extension offered in their name should be read as a labeled guess, not their word.
Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Contemplation
Notice, without judgment, where your own devotion is actually aimed today. Not where you say it is aimed, but where it goes when you are not watching it: toward a specific outcome, a specific relief, a specific person's approval. Let the noticing be enough for now. The verse does not ask you to stop wanting things. It asks you to see clearly what a given aim can and cannot finally deliver.
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.