The one who knows every being completely is the one no being can know by its own power.
It can sound like a locked door: fully known, yet unable to know in return. Read closely, it is naming where effort cannot reach, and where refuge already can.
I know every being that has ever lived, every being alive now, and every being still to come. But no one knows Me.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Krishna has just said that a soul who truly knows Vasudeva as all there is comes to that knowledge only at the end of many births, and that such a great soul is very hard to find. Now he explains why: what makes him so rarely known in the first place.
The teaching
The claim in the first half of the verse is total. Every being that has already lived and gone, every being alive now, every being still to come, moving and unmoving alike, stands within Krishna's knowing, without a single exception and without any of it being confined to the present moment alone. Then the verse turns, and the turn is just as total: but no one knows me. Several of the sources here trace this asymmetry to the same power, maya, the Lord's own capacity to make reality appear other than it is. Maya cannot delude the one it depends on for its very existence, so his knowing stays whole while everyone touched by that same power remains veiled, unable to recognize him and so, for that very reason, unable to worship him. The commentators diverge on how to weight this picture, some through the mechanics of maya, one through the Lord's own descent and the refuge it opens, and for two of the six acaryas whose readings anchor this page, the surviving material is genuinely thin, a few sentences for one, a single line borrowed from the previous verse for the other. This page says that plainly rather than filling the gap with invented confidence. What holds across every reading that does survive in fuller form is this: the one who does come to know the Lord is never described as someone who simply tried harder. It is the devotee, the one who takes refuge, who is called, in one source's words, a vessel of grace.
The doubt that rises
If the Lord already knows me completely and I cannot know him back by any effort of my own, is this asymmetry a wall, or is it the shape of an invitation I have not yet turned to accept?
Where the paths divide
Read through the mechanics of maya, where the Lord's knowing and the world's ignorance share one source.
Shankara reads the not-knowing as tied to a lack of recognition: those who do not know the Lord's truth do not worship him, and the one exception is the single devotee who takes refuge. Madhusudana sharpens the mechanism further, comparing the Lord to a magician who is never fooled by his own trick even while everyone watching is taken in. On this reading, the Lord's total knowing and the world's total not-knowing are two products of the very same maya, one that depends on him and so cannot touch him.
Read through descent and refuge rather than through maya's mechanics.
Ramanuja reads the Lord's knowing as his constant, attentive gaze upon every being across all three times, and reads the unknowability against his own descent as Vasudeva, undertaken precisely so that beings could take refuge in him. Scarcely one is found who knows him this way and resorts to him alone, which makes the true knower very hard to find, and makes the invitation to refuge, on this reading, the whole point of naming the rarity at all.
Read as a terse, honestly reported note rather than a developed argument.
What survives from Madhva here is only two sentences: maya does not bind the Lord, and no one, however able, knows him by his own power. This page keeps that brevity in view rather than dressing it up. The wider Dvaita picture, that every soul's capacity to know anything at all rests on the Lord's sanction, is consistent with these two lines but is not itself stated here, and this page marks that difference clearly.
Read as a genuinely thin source, reported honestly rather than elaborated.
The note attributed to Abhinavagupta at this verse defers entirely to 7.25, where the whole surviving comment is a single line: the Lord's not being manifest to all and his own unobstructed knowing are read together as one fact, that his fullness simply does not fall within the range ordinary beings can take in. This page does not build a confident, developed Kashmir Shaiva position on one line. On a Kashmir Shaiva reading, one might extend this toward the self's own recognition of its nature as the true site of the gap, but that extension is clearly labeled here as speculative, not as anything Abhinavagupta is on record as having said.
Read as one tie to maya, seen from two different sides.
Sridhara reads this verse as flowing directly from the one before it: having shown the Lord's supremacy is not known, Krishna now shows the unveiled reach of his own knowing, and only then explains the reason others fail to know him. Since he is the very support maya rests upon, it cannot delude him, though it deludes everyone else. He names this precisely: the Lord's all-knowing and the being's not-knowing are two sides of one and the same tie to maya, service from the Lord's side, delusion from the being's, and he leaves that asymmetry standing rather than resolving it away.
Read as a single mechanism rather than two separate mysteries.
Madhusudana's magician image travels well into a contemporary register: the performer of a trick is never fooled by it, even while everyone watching is. Applied here, the Lord's all-knowing and the world's universal not-knowing are not a paradox in need of reconciling. They are two ordinary effects of one power operating exactly as it should, touching everyone it is meant to touch and leaving untouched the one on whom it depends.
All the fuller readings agree that the asymmetry is real and total, and that its resolution, where one exists, runs through recognition, refuge, or grace rather than through sharper effort. They part on the mechanism: one maya seen from two sides, a descent made so refuge could open, or a terseness that this page refuses to smooth into false completeness. For two of the six acaryas here, the honest state of the record is that very little survives, and this page leaves that gap open rather than inventing a fuller voice to close it.
A question to carry
If you are already known completely, across every stage of your own becoming, what would change in you the moment you stopped trying to know back by force and simply turned toward being known?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
You are held inside a knowing that never once loses sight of you. What you cannot seize by your own strength, you are still free to receive.
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 said that the perfected, at the end of many births, come to know Vasudeva as all there is, and that such a soul is very hard to find; here he explains why knowing him is so rare in the first place.
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 Lord's knowing leaves nothing out: beings gone by, beings here now, and beings yet to come all stand within it.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhva · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 3 others’ words
Every commentator on record reads the first half of the verse as a claim of total reach across time: the beings that have already gone by and perished, the beings present now, and the beings yet to come all fall within Krishna's knowing, without remainder and without exception. Nothing in this knowing is confined to the present moment alone.
No one knows the Lord by their own strength alone; the negation holds for every being, however capable.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhva · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 3 others’ words
Against that total knowing stands an equally total not-knowing. No one knows the Lord, and this negation is read as covering every being without exception, however capable. The asymmetry is not treated as an accidental gap but as the very shape the verse exists to state.
The same maya that veils the world cannot veil the one it depends on, so the asymmetry has a stated mechanism, not merely a mystery.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
Several commentators trace the reason for this asymmetry to the Lord's own maya, his power of appearance that veils reality for everyone except the one who wields it. Maya cannot delude its own support, so the Lord's knowing stays whole while the world it touches remains veiled, and worshipful recognition of the Lord fails for exactly this reason.
The way in that remains open is refuge and devotion, becoming what one source calls a vessel of grace, not a sharper effort at self-powered knowing.
Across Advaita, ViśiṣṭādvaitaŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 1 others’ words
The one who does come to know the Lord is named consistently as the devotee, the one who has taken refuge in him or become a vessel of his grace. Such a knower is treated as genuinely rare rather than as an ordinary achievement open to anyone who simply tries harder.
Where a source is thin, as it genuinely is here for two of the six acaryas, this page says so plainly instead of manufacturing a fuller voice.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, Kashmir Śaiva, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhva · Abhinavagupta · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 4 others’ words
This verse's source record is markedly uneven across the six acaryas: rich and developed for Shankara, Ramanuja, Sridhara, and Madhusudana, only two brief sentences for Madhva, and, for Abhinavagupta, a note that explicitly defers to a single terse line at the previous verse. The synthesis below reflects that unevenness honestly rather than smoothing it into a false parity.
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 Lord's total knowing as the constant, attentive gaze he keeps on every being across the three times, and reads the not-knowing through descent and refuge rather than through maya's mechanics. The Lord came down as Vasudeva precisely so that beings might take refuge in him, yet among all those he attends to, scarcely one is found who truly knows him this way and resorts to him alone. The rarity of the knower is the very reason his descent, and the invitation it carries, keeps being repeated.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva's surviving comment is only two sentences: maya does not bind the Lord, and no one, however able, knows him by his own power. Even this brief note carries his characteristic stress on radical dependence, ruling out self-powered knowing for every being without exception. The fuller Dvaita architecture behind it, that a soul's very capacity to know rests on the Lord's sanction, is not stated here and is kept clearly separate from what the source actually says.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara reads the whole verse as following from the one before it, Krishna first showing his own supremacy through the unveiled reach of his knowing, then explaining why others fail to know him. Since he is the very support on which maya rests, maya cannot delude him, though it deludes everyone else. He names this directly as one and the same tie to maya read from two sides, service on the Lord's side, delusion on the being's, and leaves the asymmetry standing rather than resolving it into an easier symmetry.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Read for a contemporary ear, Madhusudana's magician image is the most exportable point: the one performing the trick is never fooled by it, even while the audience is completely taken in. Applied here, the Lord's maya operates on everyone it touches without ever touching its own source, so that all-knowing and universal not-knowing are not a paradox needing reconciliation but two effects of a single, well-understood mechanism.
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 the thought that you are already known completely, nothing about you left over or unseen, across every stage you have passed through and every one still ahead of you. Let that knowing be received rather than pursued. Whatever effort you feel rising to go out and grasp the one who knows you this way, let it settle instead into simply being present to being seen, and notice whether anything in you turns, quietly, toward that gaze.
So rest for a moment in being already known, completely and without remainder, and let whatever wants to reach back toward that knowing simply turn, gently, toward refuge.
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
very commentator on record reads the first half of the verse as a claim of total reach across time: the beings that have already gone by and perished, the beings present now, and the beings yet to come all fall within Krishna's knowing, without remainder and without exception. Nothing in this knowing is confined to the present moment alone.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Against that total knowing stands an equally total not-knowing. No one knows the Lord, and this negation is read as covering every being without exception, however capable. The asymmetry is not treated as an accidental gap but as the very shape the verse exists to state.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Several commentators trace the reason for this asymmetry to the Lord's own maya, his power of appearance that veils reality for everyone except the one who wields it. Maya cannot delude its own support, so the Lord's knowing stays whole while the world it touches remains veiled, and worshipful recognition of the Lord fails for exactly this reason.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The one who does come to know the Lord is named consistently as the devotee, the one who has taken refuge in him or become a vessel of his grace. Such a knower is treated as genuinely rare rather than as an ordinary achievement open to anyone who simply tries harder.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
This verse's source record is markedly uneven across the six acaryas: rich and developed for Shankara, Ramanuja, Sridhara, and Madhusudana, only two brief sentences for Madhva, and, for Abhinavagupta, a note that explicitly defers to a single terse line at the previous verse. The synthesis below reflects that unevenness honestly rather than smoothing it into a false parity.
Braided from 6 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara and Madhusudana both trace the not-knowing to the same mechanism: the Lord's maya deludes every being except the one on whom it depends. Madhusudana sharpens this with the image of the magician, who is never taken in by his own trick even while everyone watching is. On this reading the Lord's omniscience and the world's ignorance are two products of one and the same power, and the want of recognition, not some other failing, is why most beings do not worship him.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja reads the Lord's total knowing as the constant, attentive gaze he keeps on every being across the three times, and reads the not-knowing through descent and refuge rather than through maya's mechanics. The Lord came down as Vasudeva precisely so that beings might take refuge in him, yet among all those he attends to, scarcely one is found who truly knows him this way and resorts to him alone. The rarity of the knower is the very reason his descent, and the invitation it carries, keeps being repeated.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva's surviving comment is only two sentences: maya does not bind the Lord, and no one, however able, knows him by his own power. Even this brief note carries his characteristic stress on radical dependence, ruling out self-powered knowing for every being without exception. The fuller Dvaita architecture behind it, that a soul's very capacity to know rests on the Lord's sanction, is not stated here and is kept clearly separate from what the source actually says.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
The surviving material is genuinely thin: the note at 7.26 itself defers to 7.25, where the entire comment is a single line reading the Lord's not being manifest to all together with his own unobstructed knowing as one fact, that the Lord's fullness does not fall within the range ordinary beings can take in. A confident, developed Kashmir Shaiva position cannot honestly be built on this alone; any extension toward consciousness's own self-recognition as the reason for the gap is a labeled possibility, not Abhinavagupta's recorded word on this verse.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara reads the whole verse as following from the one before it, Krishna first showing his own supremacy through the unveiled reach of his knowing, then explaining why others fail to know him. Since he is the very support on which maya rests, maya cannot delude him, though it deludes everyone else. He names this directly as one and the same tie to maya read from two sides, service on the Lord's side, delusion on the being's, and leaves the asymmetry standing rather than resolving it into an easier symmetry.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Read for a contemporary ear, Madhusudana's magician image is the most exportable point: the one performing the trick is never fooled by it, even while the audience is completely taken in. Applied here, the Lord's maya operates on everyone it touches without ever touching its own source, so that all-knowing and universal not-knowing are not a paradox needing reconciliation but two effects of a single, well-understood mechanism.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If the Lord already knows me completely and I cannot know him by any effort of my own, what is actually left for me to do?
What is ruled out is only one route: knowing the Lord by your own unaided power, the way you might master a skill or solve a problem. Every source here treats that route as closed, without exception, for any being however capable.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhvācārya
What is left open, and named directly, is refuge. The devotee who takes shelter in the Lord, who becomes what Madhusudana calls a vessel of grace, is the one who does come to know him, not by force of effort but by turning and staying turned.
Rāmānujācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
And the asymmetry itself is not only a limit. The same maya that keeps you from grasping him is a power he holds, not one that holds him, which means the gap is not a wall between two equal strangers. It is the shape of a relationship in which you are already held, whether or not you have yet turned to notice it.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Rāmānujācārya
Contemplation
Sit for a moment with the thought that you are already known completely, nothing about you left over or unseen, across every stage you have passed through and every one still ahead of you. Let that knowing be received rather than pursued. Whatever effort you feel rising to go out and grasp the one who knows you this way, let it settle instead into simply being present to being seen, and notice whether anything in you turns, quietly, toward that gaze.
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.