Desire and aversion, working together, deceive every being from the moment it is born.
It feels like ordinary life to want the pleasant and avoid the painful. The verse names this very back-and-forth as the delusion that keeps every being from knowing the one who is its own Self.
From desire and aversion arises a delusion made of opposites, and by that delusion every creature is confused from the very moment of its birth.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Krishna has just named maya, his own veiling power, as the reason he is rarely known. Now he turns to something you can feel directly in yourself: the pull toward what is pleasant and the push away from what is painful, and the confusion this ordinary back-and-forth quietly produces.
The teaching
Two movements are at work in you all the time. Desire is the pull toward what feels agreeable. Aversion is the push away from what feels disagreeable. Neither, on its own, looks like anything unusual. But from these two together springs a delusion of the pairs of opposites, the contrary experiences that always arrive together: heat and cold, pleasure and pain, honor and dishonor, gain and loss. You meet the pairs, you want the pleasant, you turn from the painful, and out of that ordinary back-and-forth a settled conviction hardens, almost without your noticing: I am the happy one, I am the suffering one; I am honored, this is mine; I am dishonored. Gripped this way, the mind loses the power to see things as they truly are. And consider how far this reaches. If such a mind cannot even see outward objects correctly, how much less can it see the Self within. This is why the delusion of the pairs is not a minor inconvenience but the very obstacle that blocks true knowledge from rising, a nearer cause set alongside maya, not a replacement for it. Nor is this the bad luck of a few. It is built into birth itself. From the very moment the body arises, before discrimination has any chance to settle, you are already caught in it, and the desire and aversion practiced in earlier births leave traces that awaken again at each new birth, presenting the same pairs as things to want or shun. Because the inner faculty is agitated this way, beings do not know the one who is their own Self and the supreme Lord, and so do not worship him. Yet notice how Krishna names the one he is speaking to: by his noble lineage, and by his own inborn strength to scorch his foes. This delusion is universal, but so, the naming suggests, is the capacity to meet it.
The doubt that rises
If this delusion is built into birth itself and renewed by the traces of past lives, can I actually escape it by my own effort, or am I simply stuck with it?
Where the paths divide
Read as the direct obstacle blocking knowledge of the Self.
A mind ruled by wanting and hating cannot see even outward things as they truly are, so it is far less able to see the innermost Self, where the obstructions run deeper still. Shankara reads this delusion as the direct block that knowledge must clear, and treats the verse as setting up the very next one, which will name who, in fact, becomes free of it. The two verses together form a single argument: this is why knowledge of the Lord is rare, and here, next, is how it nonetheless becomes possible.
Read as a structural condition of embodiment itself.
Ramanuja stresses that this is no incidental lapse. Desire and aversion practiced across past births leave their mark, and at each new birth that mark reawakens, presenting the very same pairs as things to want and shun, so that a being's nature becomes shaped around this wanting and shunning. Set against this stands the one who knows, whose single nature instead is the joy and pain of union with the Lord and of separation from him. No being is born already possessing that nature; it has to be reached, deliberately, by turning toward him.
Read as one cause carefully placed among others.
What survives of Madhva's comment is brief, and its one sharp claim concerns timing rather than a fuller theology. This delusion, he says, is a further cause, not the root one: from the very moment of creation onward, wherever there is a body, desire and its kin are present, but before that there is only ignorance. The ordering matters to him, ignorance first, this delusion layered onto it once embodiment begins, and the source does not go further than this careful sequencing.
Read as an answer to a doubt about whether dissolution frees you.
What remains of Abhinavagupta's comment here answers a specific question rather than expounding the delusion in its own right: does dissolution bring release, since action still continues until then? His answer works through this verse's own mechanism, desire, aversion, anger and delusion swelling a being into something vast that sinks into a sleep-like state at dissolution, only to have the wandering resume once that experience of delusion ends. A fuller Shaiva reading of contraction and recognized freedom would reach further than this fragment, and any such extension should be held as extrapolation, not as words this text itself supplies.
Read as a call to refuge rather than to willpower alone.
Sridhara names the moha as structural with the very arising of the body, settling into the gripped, first-person conviction, I am the happy one, I am the sorrowing one. His distinctive claim is practical: because the delusion runs this deep, mere self-effort, however sincere, cannot lift it unaided. What reaches far enough is refuge in the very Lord who supports maya in the first place; nothing shallower will do.
Read for its plain, practical edge.
Madhusudana's point, read this way, is double-edged and encouraging at once. No being at all is entirely free of desire and hatred, and a mind gripped by them cannot truly know even an outer thing, let alone the Self; the delusion is universal. But Krishna's own naming of Arjuna, by his noble lineage and his inborn strength, is read as a real signal that this particular enemy, universal as it is, can in principle be met and overcome.
All six readings agree the delusion is built into birth and carried forward from earlier lives; none treats it as a small or easily willed-away habit. They part on what actually cuts it. Shankara looks to the rise of discriminating knowledge; Ramanuja and Sridhara look toward something given, the Lord's own grace, reached through refuge rather than effort alone; Madhva is careful only to place this delusion correctly among causes, without saying more; Abhinavagupta's fragment questions whether any dissolution, without that grace or that knowledge, could count as real release at all. This page does not choose among them.
A question to carry
Notice one small place today where wanting or shunning has already hardened into 'I am the happy one' or 'I am the unlucky one.' What would it take to simply see that conviction forming, without yet deciding what to do about it?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
May you notice, today, one moment when wanting or shunning quietly takes hold, and may the noticing itself begin, even slightly, to loosen its grip.
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 named his own veiling power, maya, as why he is rarely known; here he names a second, nearer cause that works inside the mind of everyone born.
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.
Desire pulls toward the agreeable; aversion pushes from the disagreeable. Together they give rise to a delusion of pairs: heat and cold, honor and dishonor, gain and loss.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhva · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 3 others’ words
A second cause is added to the first. Just before this verse, maya, the Lord's own veiling power, was named as why beings do not know him. Here a nearer, more immediate cause joins it: the delusion that arises from desire, the pull toward the agreeable, and aversion, the push from the disagreeable. From these two springs a delusion of the pairs of opposites, heat and cold, pleasure and pain, honor and dishonor, gain and loss, and this is added to maya, not offered as a replacement for it.
From that back-and-forth a conviction hardens, I am the happy one, I am the suffering one, and a mind held this way loses the power to see anything truly.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
The mechanism has a shape all six describe in similar terms: confronted with the pairs, a being wants the pleasant and shuns the painful, and from that back-and-forth a confused conviction settles in, stated directly as 'I am the happy one, I am the suffering one' or 'I am honored, this is mine.' A mind gripped this way loses the power to see things as they truly are.
If such a mind cannot see outward things rightly, it is far less able to see the Self within; the delusion is the very obstacle blocking true knowledge.
Across Advaita, Kashmir ŚaivaŚaṅkara · Madhusūdana · AbhinavaguptaIn Śaṅkara, Madhusūdana, and 1 others’ words
The point is pressed by a how-much-more argument: if such a mind cannot even see outward objects correctly, far less can it know the innermost Self. So the delusion of the pairs is not a side effect of ignorance but is itself the direct obstacle that blocks the rise of true knowledge.
This is built into birth itself, arising with the body, and carried forward by the traces of desire and aversion practiced in earlier lives.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhva · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
This delusion is not the bad luck of a few; it is built into birth itself. 'At creation,' at the arising of the gross body, is when the bewilderment sets in, before discrimination has had any chance to settle. Ramanuja and Madhva both add a further reason: desire and aversion practiced in earlier births leave a mark, and at the next birth that mark awakens and presents the pairs again as objects to want or shun.
Because of it, beings do not know Krishna, their own Self, and do not worship him. Yet he addresses Arjuna as one of noble line and real strength, able to meet this enemy.
Across AdvaitaŚaṅkara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara and Madhusūdana’s words
Because the inner faculty is agitated by attraction and aversion, beings do not know Krishna, who is their own Self and the supreme Lord, and so do not worship him. Shankara and Madhusudana both notice that Krishna addresses Arjuna here as Bharata and Parantapa, names read as encouragement: by lineage and inborn strength, Arjuna is the kind of person able to overcome this particular enemy.
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 stresses that the delusion is a structural condition, not a personal failing: desire and aversion practiced across past births leave a mark that resurfaces at each new birth, shaping a being's very nature around wanting and shunning the pairs. Against this he sets the one who knows, whose single nature is instead the joy and pain of union with, and separation from, the Lord. No being is born already possessing that nature; it has to be reached.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva's extant comment is brief, but its one sharp claim concerns timing: this delusion is a further cause, not the root one. From the moment of creation onward, wherever there is a body, desire and its kin are present, but before that there is only ignorance. Beyond this careful ordering, the source does not elaborate his fuller Dvaita themes here, and none should be read into the silence.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara names the moha as structural with embodiment itself, arising the moment the gross body arises, and settling into the gripped, first-person conviction 'I am the happy one, I am the sorrowing one.' His distinctive move is practical: because the delusion runs this deep, mere self-effort cannot lift it. Only refuge in the very Lord who supports maya reaches far enough to cut it.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Read for its practical edge, Madhusudana's point is that no being at all is entirely free of desire and hatred, and any mind gripped by them loses the very fitness to know an outer thing, let alone the Self. Yet the same passage reads Krishna's naming of Arjuna's lineage and strength as a real encouragement: the enemy is universal, but so, in principle, is the capacity to stand against it.
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, just for a moment, where your own wanting and shunning are actually pointed today. Watch a small pleasant thing arrive and a small unpleasant thing arrive, and notice the same old conviction trying to settle in: I am the fortunate one, I am the unlucky one. You do not have to argue with it. Just see it forming, and let that seeing loosen its grip a little before you decide what, if anything, you will do next.
Notice, just today, one small moment when wanting or shunning takes hold of you, and let the noticing itself begin to loosen its grip.
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
second cause is added to the first. Just before this verse, maya, the Lord's own veiling power, was named as why beings do not know him. Here a nearer, more immediate cause joins it: the delusion that arises from desire, the pull toward the agreeable, and aversion, the push from the disagreeable. From these two springs a delusion of the pairs of opposites, heat and cold, pleasure and pain, honor and dishonor, gain and loss, and this is added to maya, not offered as a replacement for it.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The mechanism has a shape all six describe in similar terms: confronted with the pairs, a being wants the pleasant and shuns the painful, and from that back-and-forth a confused conviction settles in, stated directly as 'I am the happy one, I am the suffering one' or 'I am honored, this is mine.' A mind gripped this way loses the power to see things as they truly are.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The point is pressed by a how-much-more argument: if such a mind cannot even see outward objects correctly, far less can it know the innermost Self. So the delusion of the pairs is not a side effect of ignorance but is itself the direct obstacle that blocks the rise of true knowledge.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
This delusion is not the bad luck of a few; it is built into birth itself. 'At creation,' at the arising of the gross body, is when the bewilderment sets in, before discrimination has had any chance to settle. Ramanuja and Madhva both add a further reason: desire and aversion practiced in earlier births leave a mark, and at the next birth that mark awakens and presents the pairs again as objects to want or shun.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Because the inner faculty is agitated by attraction and aversion, beings do not know Krishna, who is their own Self and the supreme Lord, and so do not worship him. Shankara and Madhusudana both notice that Krishna addresses Arjuna here as Bharata and Parantapa, names read as encouragement: by lineage and inborn strength, Arjuna is the kind of person able to overcome this particular enemy.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara reads the delusion of the pairs as the direct, intermediate obstacle to knowledge of the Self: a mind overcome by wanting and hating cannot see outward things truly, so far less the inmost Self where the obstructions run deeper. He treats this verse as setting up the very next one, which names who escapes this delusion, so the two verses form a single argument about the rarity, and the cure, of true knowledge.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja stresses that the delusion is a structural condition, not a personal failing: desire and aversion practiced across past births leave a mark that resurfaces at each new birth, shaping a being's very nature around wanting and shunning the pairs. Against this he sets the one who knows, whose single nature is instead the joy and pain of union with, and separation from, the Lord. No being is born already possessing that nature; it has to be reached.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva's extant comment is brief, but its one sharp claim concerns timing: this delusion is a further cause, not the root one. From the moment of creation onward, wherever there is a body, desire and its kin are present, but before that there is only ignorance. Beyond this careful ordering, the source does not elaborate his fuller Dvaita themes here, and none should be read into the silence.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
What survives of Abhinavagupta's comment answers a specific objection about whether dissolution brings release, rather than expounding the delusion of desire and aversion in its own right. His answer: through desire, aversion, anger and delusion, a being swells into something vast and sinks into a sleep-like state at dissolution, but this is not release, since when that experience of delusion ends, the wandering through manifold workings resumes. A fuller Kashmir Shaiva reading of contraction and recognition would extend beyond this, and is flagged here only as a possible, unproven extension, not as his own stated words.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara names the moha as structural with embodiment itself, arising the moment the gross body arises, and settling into the gripped, first-person conviction 'I am the happy one, I am the sorrowing one.' His distinctive move is practical: because the delusion runs this deep, mere self-effort cannot lift it. Only refuge in the very Lord who supports maya reaches far enough to cut it.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Read for its practical edge, Madhusudana's point is that no being at all is entirely free of desire and hatred, and any mind gripped by them loses the very fitness to know an outer thing, let alone the Self. Yet the same passage reads Krishna's naming of Arjuna's lineage and strength as a real encouragement: the enemy is universal, but so, in principle, is the capacity to stand against it.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If this delusion is built into birth itself and renewed from past lives, is it even possible to escape it by my own effort, or am I simply stuck with it?
Take the difficulty seriously rather than minimizing it. The verse really does say the delusion is present from the very arising of the body, before discrimination can settle, and Ramanuja and Madhva both add that it is renewed each life by the traces of past desire and aversion. This is not a small habit removable by a single decision; it is closer to a condition of being born at all.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya
But naming the depth of the problem is not the same as declaring it hopeless. Sridhara is explicit that because this moha is structural with embodiment, mere unaided effort cannot lift it on its own; what reaches deep enough is refuge in the very Lord who supports maya in the first place, not willpower working alone against an inherited current.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
And you are not without real resources even now. Krishna's own address to Arjuna, naming him by his noble lineage and by his inborn power to scorch foes, is read by more than one commentator as a deliberate signal that a person can indeed stand against this particular enemy. The delusion is universal, Madhusudana stresses, but so, in principle, is the strength to meet it.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Contemplation
Notice, just for a moment, where your own wanting and shunning are actually pointed today. Watch a small pleasant thing arrive and a small unpleasant thing arrive, and notice the same old conviction trying to settle in: I am the fortunate one, I am the unlucky one. You do not have to argue with it. Just see it forming, and let that seeing loosen its grip a little before you decide what, if anything, you will do next.
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.