StudyVedanta
Skip to the verse
V.67.57.7
Read slowly

Every being rises from his two natures, and he alone is the world's source and its end.

It is easy to feel the world as a crowd of things that simply happen to you, one thing after another with no thread between them. Krishna gathers all of it back to a single root: nothing that lives falls outside his lower and higher natures, and those natures are wholly his.

6Chapter 7
The verseSpoken by Krishna
Voices6 commentators · 5 schools · modern voices
The readingAbout 6 minutes, unhurried
एतद्योनीनि भूतानि सर्वाणीत्युपधारय। अहं कृत्स्नस्य जगतः प्रभवः प्रलयस्तथा
etad-yonīni bhūtāni sarvāṇītyupadhāraya ahaṁ kṛitsnasya jagataḥ prabhavaḥ pralayas tathā

Understand that every being without exception is born from these two natures joined together. I am the source from which the whole universe arises, and I am the place into which it dissolves.

Bhagavad Gita 7.6
0:00 / 0:00

Saved for this reading session

Three movements · tap a label to switch

Sanskrit recitation by Swami Brahmānanda

Audio from the Gītā Supersite, IIT Kanpur

The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece

Where it stands

Krishna has just set out two natures: a lower one, the eightfold material world, and a higher one, the living, conscious being. Now he tells Arjuna what these two are together. They are the single womb of everything that lives, and he is the source they trace back to.

The teaching

All beings spring from his two natures joined as one womb, and he alone is where they rise and where they return.

Every being whatsoever, without exception, comes from these two natures joined together: everything from the creator Brahma down to a single blade of grass, the still things such as plants and trees, and the moving things such as gods, humans, animals, and birds, born in every way a being can be born. Nothing in creation falls outside this pair. Bear this home, Krishna says, and the instruction asks for more than a passing glance. Settle it firmly in the mind; hold the conviction near your inmost seat and let sustained practice make it as close as your own self. The reasoning underneath is direct: the world you see is a mixture of consciousness and lifeless matter, so its cause must likewise be a knot of both, which is exactly what these two natures are. But the two natures are not independent of Krishna; they arise from him and belong to him. So he alone is the rising of the whole world, and equally its dissolving, the place where everything gathers back in. The weight of the verse falls on the word I: it is not unconscious matter producing and reabsorbing the world by itself, but the conscious, all-knowing Lord who pervades and owns the two natures.

The doubt that rises

If the world truly rises from Krishna and dissolves back into him, does that make him somehow responsible for every loss and cruelty within it? And once its source and end are entirely his, does the world still have a reality that is genuinely its own, or none at all?

Where the paths divide

Advaita Vedanta

The two natures as the one womb of sentient and insentient alike.

Shankara marks the two natures as the field and the knower of the field, the shared womb of every being, sentient and insentient without distinction. Because his own twofold nature is the source of everything that is, he is both the rising of the world and its dissolving, and through these two natures he stands as the all-knowing Lord who is the world's true cause. His own comment stays brief here, a hinge opening onto the reasoning the following verses will carry further rather than a full elaboration within this line alone.

Vishishtadvaita

Matter and soul as fully real, the Lord's own living body.

Ramanuja holds that matter and the conscious person, gathered together as the unconscious and the conscious, are fully real and form the very body of the Lord, never mere appearances to be reasoned away. Every being, being a mixture of the two, belongs to him because both of its constituents are his; the two natures in turn arise from him as their own womb. He grounds this in scripture describing the manifest dissolving stage by stage back into the unmanifest, the Lord standing as both material cause and final gatherer of all.

Dvaita

Sovereignty as enjoyer, never identity with the world.

Madhva refuses to read this verse as any identity between the Lord and the world's rising and dissolving. What it grants instead is an expanded sovereignty: he is the cause of the two natures' arising, their continuance, and their being known, and above all their enjoyer, called source and dissolver the way a father is called the cause of a son's birth, by way of the happiness that birth brings him. His own being changes not at all; the joy he takes in the world's arising and passing already and always exists within him.

Kashmir Shaivism

A thin, single-paragraph fragment: an experiential recognition, not a full system.

The surviving comment attributed to Abhinavagupta on this verse is brief, a single paragraph rather than a developed treatment. It reads bear it home as an inner recognition settled through practice, that the Lord, Vasudeva, is where all things rise and where all things dissolve. From the emphatic I it draws that the Lord, distinct from nature, from the person, and from the supreme Person, still runs through all three, closing the apparent gap between the paths of knowledge and action, and it offers one image: gems strung on a thread, the thread unseen yet holding everything together. Any further extension toward a fuller Kashmir Shaiva cosmology of vibration or self-recognition would be a conditional gloss on this thin source, not Abhinavagupta's own words.

Bhakti

The soul as the Lord's own portion, entering bodies as enjoyer.

Sridhara shows both natures to be nature in the fullest sense, and Krishna the cause of creation precisely through them. The lifeless nature transforms into the body; the conscious nature, being Krishna's own portion, enters that body as the one who enjoys and sustains it through its own action. Because both natures have come to be from him, he alone is the supreme cause from which the world arises together with its nature, and the one into whom it dissolves back, a portion-relation that here opens directly onto devotion rather than staying purely metaphysical.

Modern

A stated inference: the mixed effect implies a mixed cause.

Madhusudana reads the verse as carrying its own inference: the effects, all beings, are a knot of consciousness and lifelessness woven together, so the cause must be such a knot too, namely the two natures as the Lord's own limiting features. Through them he is the all-knowing, all-powerful source of the world's making and unmaking, pictured as the show in a dream, where the one dreamer is at once the material the dream is made of and the one who watches it unfold, without any real division between the two roles.

All six readings hold that the world is never self-standing, that both it and its immediate source, the two natures, trace back to the Lord alone. They part on what that dependence means for the world's own reality. Is it a dream held by a witness who remains untouched, as Shankara suggests? Is it his own real body, as Ramanuja holds? Is it merely his enjoyed effect, with identity firmly denied, as Madhva insists? Is it his portion at work, as Sridhara reads it? Or is it best approached, on the thin surviving fragment, as something to be inwardly recognized rather than metaphysically settled, as Abhinavagupta's brief comment gestures toward? The verse does not choose among these, and this page will not choose for it.

A question to carry

If nothing that rises to meet you today, and nothing that falls away, stands outside this one source, can you let both arrivals and departures belong to a single whole, rather than treating them as accidents landing on you from somewhere outside?

Let what rises today and what passes away be received as two movements of a single source, and let nothing you meet stand, in your own heart, outside of it.

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.

Having just named his lower nature, the eightfold material world, and his higher nature, the conscious living being, Krishna now joins the two and declares them the one womb from which every creature springs.

Where they agreethe convergence

All beings arise from the two natures, and the two natures arise from the Lord alone, so he is the single, unshared source and the single, unshared end of everything that is.

Across schools and centuries the commentators come to the same ground. These are the points they share, and the voices that hold each one.

3schools

Search anywhere in creation, from the greatest being to the smallest blade of grass, and you find nothing standing outside this one pair of natures working together.

Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · Madhusūdana
In Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words

Every being whatsoever, without a single exception, springs from the two natures Krishna has just named: the lower nature, the eightfold material world, and the higher nature, the conscious living being. The commentators press this totality hard, listing everything from Brahma down to a blade of grass, the still things and the moving things, every kind of birth there is. Nothing in creation stands outside this pair working together.

Asked in question 1, below
3schools

Do not let this pass as mere information; settle it firmly in the mind and let it become, through practice, as close and familiar as your own self.

Across Advaita, Kashmir Śaiva, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Abhinavagupta · Śrīdhara · Madhusūdana
In Śaṅkara, Abhinavagupta, and 2 others’ words

The instruction upadharaya asks for more than passing notice. It is read as an order to grasp the teaching firmly, settle it deep in the mind, and hold it near the inward seat until it becomes close to one's own self through sustained practice. Several commentators, including the more fragmentary Kashmir Shaiva reading, converge on this same experiential emphasis.

Asked in question 4, below
4schools

The two natures give birth to beings, yet they themselves are born of the Lord and belong to him, so he alone is the rising of all things and the place they return to.

Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhva · Śrīdhara · Madhusūdana
In Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 3 others’ words

Because the two natures are themselves derived from Krishna and belong to him rather than standing as independent powers, Krishna alone can rightly be called the origin and the dissolution of the whole world. The cause of the cause is the true cause, so the Lord working through his two natures is the single source and the single end of everything that is.

Asked in question 2, below
3schools

It is not blind, unconscious matter that makes and unmakes the world by itself; the conscious Lord stands behind the two natures as their true, knowing cause.

Across Advaita, Dvaita, Kashmir ŚaivaŚaṅkara · Madhva · Abhinavagupta · Madhusūdana
In Śaṅkara, Madhva, and 2 others’ words

The emphatic word I rules out the idea that unconscious matter, on its own, could produce and reabsorb the world. Whatever the school, the commentators insist the true cause is conscious: the all-knowing Lord who pervades and owns the two natures, not blind nature operating by itself.

Asked in question 3, below
3schools

However the schools read the world's own reality, dream, body, portion, or dependent enjoyment, none of them lets the world stand as a second, independent thing beside him.

Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · Madhusūdana
In Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words

Several commentators read the verse as carrying its own inference: the world, the effect, is a mixture of consciousness and insentience, so its cause must likewise be a knot of consciousness and insentience, namely these two natures held together in one source.

This is the shared ground; it can be carried as it is. Below is where they differ.

Where they differthe divergence

The question they answer differently
Krishna calls himself the single origin and dissolution of the world through his two natures; do those natures make him one with the world's own being, its real body, its enjoyed effect, or only its dependent appearance?
The traditional commentators
Advaita Vedāntasee this school across the GītāŚaṅkara
The field and its knower together are the one womb of all beings, and through them Krishna, the all-knowing Lord, is both the world's rising and its dissolving.
The two natures are the sentient and insentient wombs from which nothing in creation stands apart.
Viśiṣṭādvaitasee this school across the GītāRāmānuja
Matter and the conscious person are fully real, the Lord's own body, and every being, being a mixture of both, belongs to him because both constituents are his.
Backed by scripture on the manifest dissolving stage by stage back into the unmanifest Lord.
Viśiṣṭādvaita, in their fuller words

Ramanuja holds that matter and the conscious person, the gathering of the unconscious and the conscious, are fully real and constitute the very body of the Lord, not appearances to be explained away. Every being, being a mixture of the two, belongs to him because both of its constituents are his; the two natures in turn arise from him as their own womb, so scripture's account of the manifest dissolving stage by stage back into the unmanifest describes the Lord's own real self as material cause and final gatherer.

Rāmānuja
Asked in question 5, below
Dvaitasee this school across the GītāMadhva
The verse expands the Lord's sovereignty as enjoyer of the world's rising and passing, never asserting identity between him and what he causes.
He undergoes no real change; his being called source and dissolver names his enjoyment, not his transformation.
Dvaita, in their fuller words

Madhva is careful to deny any identity between the Lord and the world's rising and dissolving. What the verse grants is an expanded sovereignty: he is the cause of the two natures' arising, continuance, and being known, and above all he is their enjoyer, called source and dissolver the way a father is called the cause of a son's birth, by way of the happiness it brings him. His own being undergoes no real change; the happiness he takes in the world's rising and passing always already exists in him.

Madhva
Shaivasee this school across the GītāAbhinavagupta
On the surviving fragment, bearing this home is an inner recognition, through practice, that the Lord runs through nature, person, and the supreme Person alike, unseen like a thread strung through gems.
Source is thin, a single short paragraph; read as pointing toward, not fully expounding, a Kashmir Shaiva cosmology.
Shaiva, in their fuller words

The surviving fragment attributed to Abhinavagupta reads bear it home as an experiential instruction, an inner recognition settled through practice that the Lord, Vasudeva, is where all things rise and dissolve. He draws from the emphatic I that the Lord, distinct from nature, person, and the supreme Person, nonetheless runs through all three, closing any real gap between the paths of knowledge and action, and offers the single image of gems strung on a thread, the thread hidden yet holding everything together. The source text does not develop this further into a fuller Kashmir Shaiva cosmology; any extension toward the vibration of consciousness or the play of contraction and expansion would be a conditional gloss on a thin source, not Abhinavagupta's own further words.

Abhinavagupta
BhaktiŚrīdhara
The conscious soul is Krishna's own portion, entering bodies as the enjoyer and sustaining them by its own action, so he alone is the world's supreme cause and its final gathering-in.
Both natures, transforming matter and portioned soul, are shown as truly his.
Bhakti, in their fuller words

Sridhara shows both natures to be truly nature in the full sense and Krishna the cause of creation precisely through them. The lifeless nature transforms into the body; the conscious nature, being Krishna's own portion, enters bodies as the enjoyer and sustains them by its own action. Because both have come to be from him, he alone is the supreme cause from which the world arises with its nature and the one into whom it dissolves back, a portion-relation that will ripen, in his reading, toward devotion rather than mere metaphysics.

Śrīdhara
Modern voices teachers of the last two centuries, read together; they stand apart from the classical schools
A modern readingMadhusūdana
The verse states a plain inference: a world mixed of consciousness and matter needs a cause that is likewise a knot of both, which the Lord supplies as his own limiting features.
Likened to a dream where the one dreamer is both its material and its witness.
A modern reading, in their fuller words

Madhusudana casts the verse as a stated inference: the effects, all beings, are a knot of consciousness and lifelessness, so the cause must be such a knot too, namely the two natures as the Lord's own limiting features. Through them he is the all-knowing, all-powerful source of the world's making and unmaking, likened to the show in a dream where the same dreamer is both the material the dream is made of and the one who watches it, without division between the two roles.

Madhusūdana
Asked in question 6, below
Sit with these

A few questions to carry

These ask for understanding, not recall; each answer is settled by the commentary itself.

1
What does the verse say is the source of every being without exception?
2
Why can Krishna call himself the origin and dissolution of the world, when the two natures are its immediate source?
3
What does the emphatic word 'I' rule out in this verse?
4
The verb 'bear this home' (upadharaya) asks the listener to do what with this teaching?
5
For Ramanuja, what is the standing of matter and the conscious person in this verse?
6
What inference does Madhusudana say the verse itself carries?
7
What steadying shift can follow from truly holding this one-source teaching in the heart?
For a second sitting5 more questions
8
How does Madhva guard against reading this verse as identity between the Lord and the world?
9
What does the surviving Abhinavagupta fragment on this verse actually offer?
10
According to Sridhara, what is the specific role of the conscious nature, as Krishna's own portion, within a body?
11
What image does Madhusudana use to describe the Lord as both material cause and witness of the world?
12
On the shared reading beneath all six commentators, what is the world's status relative to the Lord?

Carry this with youwhat stays

Sit for a moment with the thought that nothing you meet today, no person, no event, no passing feeling, arises from anywhere but this one source, and returns to anywhere but this one end. Let that settle as a conviction rather than a fact filed away. Notice, as you do, whether the world starts to feel less like a scatter of accidents and more like a single fabric you are woven into.

Carry this with you today: nothing that arrives and nothing that passes falls outside this one source, so let the world stop feeling like a string of accidents, and meet it instead as belonging, arising and dissolving, to him alone.

एतद्योनीनि भूतानि सर्वाणीत्युपधारय। अहं कृत्स्नस्य जगतः प्रभवः प्रलयस्तथा।।etad-yonīni bhūtāni sarvāṇīty upadhāraya, ahaṁ kṛitsnasya jagataḥ prabhavaḥ pralayas tathā

Read deeper

Everything a full study holds, folded below.

Word by word11 terms
etat yonīnithese two (energies) are the source ofbhūtāniliving beingssarvāṇiallitithatupadhārayaknowahamIkṛitsnasyaentirejagataḥcreationprabhavaḥthe sourcepralayaḥdissolutiontathāand
All the commentary, woven togetherevery voice, in one place

The commentary, woven together

machine-assisted draft, pending review

Convergence

very being whatsoever, without a single exception, springs from the two natures Krishna has just named: the lower nature, the eightfold material world, and the higher nature, the conscious living being. The commentators press this totality hard, listing everything from Brahma down to a blade of grass, the still things and the moving things, every kind of birth there is. Nothing in creation stands outside this pair working together.

Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī

The instruction upadharaya asks for more than passing notice. It is read as an order to grasp the teaching firmly, settle it deep in the mind, and hold it near the inward seat until it becomes close to one's own self through sustained practice. Several commentators, including the more fragmentary Kashmir Shaiva reading, converge on this same experiential emphasis.

Śaṅkarācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī

Because the two natures are themselves derived from Krishna and belong to him rather than standing as independent powers, Krishna alone can rightly be called the origin and the dissolution of the whole world. The cause of the cause is the true cause, so the Lord working through his two natures is the single source and the single end of everything that is.

Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī

The emphatic word I rules out the idea that unconscious matter, on its own, could produce and reabsorb the world. Whatever the school, the commentators insist the true cause is conscious: the all-knowing Lord who pervades and owns the two natures, not blind nature operating by itself.

Śaṅkarācārya · Madhvācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī

Several commentators read the verse as carrying its own inference: the world, the effect, is a mixture of consciousness and insentience, so its cause must likewise be a knot of consciousness and insentience, namely these two natures held together in one source.

Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī

Divergence

Advaita Vedānta

Shankara reads the two natures as the field and the knower of the field, the womb of every being, sentient and insentient alike. Because his own twofold nature is the source of all that is, he is both the world's rising and its dissolving, and through these two natures he stands as the all-knowing Lord who is the world's cause. Shankara's own comment here stays terse, opening onto the reasoning the following verses will unfold rather than elaborating a separate cosmology within this line alone.

Śaṅkarācārya

Viśiṣṭādvaita

Ramanuja holds that matter and the conscious person, the gathering of the unconscious and the conscious, are fully real and constitute the very body of the Lord, not appearances to be explained away. Every being, being a mixture of the two, belongs to him because both of its constituents are his; the two natures in turn arise from him as their own womb, so scripture's account of the manifest dissolving stage by stage back into the unmanifest describes the Lord's own real self as material cause and final gatherer.

Rāmānujācārya

Dvaita

Madhva is careful to deny any identity between the Lord and the world's rising and dissolving. What the verse grants is an expanded sovereignty: he is the cause of the two natures' arising, continuance, and being known, and above all he is their enjoyer, called source and dissolver the way a father is called the cause of a son's birth, by way of the happiness it brings him. His own being undergoes no real change; the happiness he takes in the world's rising and passing always already exists in him.

Madhvācārya

Kashmir Śaiva

The surviving fragment attributed to Abhinavagupta reads bear it home as an experiential instruction, an inner recognition settled through practice that the Lord, Vasudeva, is where all things rise and dissolve. He draws from the emphatic I that the Lord, distinct from nature, person, and the supreme Person, nonetheless runs through all three, closing any real gap between the paths of knowledge and action, and offers the single image of gems strung on a thread, the thread hidden yet holding everything together. The source text does not develop this further into a fuller Kashmir Shaiva cosmology; any extension toward the vibration of consciousness or the play of contraction and expansion would be a conditional gloss on a thin source, not Abhinavagupta's own further words.

Ācārya Abhinavagupta

Bhakti

Sridhara shows both natures to be truly nature in the full sense and Krishna the cause of creation precisely through them. The lifeless nature transforms into the body; the conscious nature, being Krishna's own portion, enters bodies as the enjoyer and sustains them by its own action. Because both have come to be from him, he alone is the supreme cause from which the world arises with its nature and the one into whom it dissolves back, a portion-relation that will ripen, in his reading, toward devotion rather than mere metaphysics.

Śrīdhara Svāmī

Modern

Madhusudana casts the verse as a stated inference: the effects, all beings, are a knot of consciousness and lifelessness, so the cause must be such a knot too, namely the two natures as the Lord's own limiting features. Through them he is the all-knowing, all-powerful source of the world's making and unmaking, likened to the show in a dream where the same dreamer is both the material the dream is made of and the one who watches it, without division between the two roles.

Madhusūdana Sarasvatī

A Seeker Asks

If the world truly comes from God and dissolves back into God, does it have any reality of its own, or is it simply an illusion with no standing at all?

All six readings agree on one point beneath their differences: the world is never self-standing. It comes from the two natures, and those natures themselves come from the Lord, so there is no second, independent cause to grant alongside him, whatever else is said about the world's own reality.

Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī

But they part on what that dependence means for the world's own status. Shankara likens the world to a dream the Lord both projects and witnesses, a real experience without independent standing; Ramanuja and Sridhara instead hold matter and soul as fully real, the Lord's own body or his own portion at work within it.

Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī

Madhva sharpens the question further: even calling the Lord the world's rising and dissolving is not a claim of identity but of sovereignty, held as an enjoyer who himself never changes. So the honest answer is that the verse settles dependence, not detail; how thoroughly to read the world as real or as appearance remains a live fork the verse itself does not close.

Madhvācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta

Contemplation

Sit for a moment with the thought that nothing you meet today, no person, no event, no passing feeling, arises from anywhere but this one source, and returns to anywhere but this one end. Let that settle as a conviction rather than a fact filed away. Notice, as you do, whether the world starts to feel less like a scatter of accidents and more like a single fabric you are woven into.

Sit with this · sonnet-5-authored

All the translations and commentary7 translations
Translationsthe verse re-voiced; tap a translator
The commentatorsthe schools expound the verse

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.

Where this teaching echoesin the Haripath