Heat and rain, life and death, the seen and the hidden: nothing stands apart from him.
The sun that warms the earth is the same power that withholds the rain and sends it forth in season; the life by which you continue and the death that will end you are the same one Lord. There is no second power behind what you fear, and nothing anywhere, manifest or hidden, that stands outside him.
I give heat as the sun, and I withhold the rain and send it forth again. I am the deathless and death alike, and I am both the existent and the non-existent, Arjuna.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Krishna is still walking through the ordinary workings of the world, the heat, the rain, the turning of the seasons, and showing that none of it runs on its own. Here he widens the claim as far as it can go: even life and death, even being and non-being, are nothing but himself.
The teaching
Standing as the sun, he burns in the hot season and sends the rain forth when the rains come; at other times he holds it back and draws it in again. Several teachers are precise about the rhythm: the water is gathered up as vapor for eight months and released as rain across four. Read carefully, withholding and pouring are not two contrary powers taking turns. They are one ordered act, timed across the year, so what looks to you like good fortune or hard luck in a season is, in plain fact, the same Lord at work in both. He then claims the two greatest opposites any embodied life knows. He is amrita, the deathless, the very life-force that keeps a creature going, sometimes read as the nectar of the gods; and he is mrityu, death, the ending that closes a mortal life. He does not leave you with a kind God who gives life while some other, darker power brings death. The same one stands behind both the continuing and the ending of everything that lives. And he goes further still: he is sat and asat, the existent and the non-existent, and all of this is himself alone. A recurring way of hearing the pair takes sat as the effect, the gross and visible thing already come into name and form, and asat as its cause, the subtle reality that has not yet come into view. Non-existent, on this reading, never means nothing at all. It names what is hidden, not what fails to be. The whole sweep, shown and unshown, is claimed as the Lord. Because he is all of this, the worship spoken of just before rests on solid ground. Knowing him as the self of everything, life and death, the seen and the hidden, the wise worship him alone, each according to their own understanding. This is what marks the great souls apart from those who, as the chapter goes on to say, are left merely craving their own desires.
The doubt that rises
If he is equally the deathless and death, the existent and the non-existent, does that make him indifferent to which one falls on you? What would it even mean to love or trust a God who owns both your comfort and your loss without preference?
Where the paths divide
Read as effect and its unmanifest cause, with the Lord wholly real in himself.
Sat is the effect, the manifest thing standing in relation to a cause; asat is that cause itself, unmanifest and not yet come into form. The Lord is not thereby made utterly unreal. In himself, and as both cause and effect together, he is the real, and what looks like the unreal only from the vantage of the effect alone. The worship this grounds reaches each seeker by the way he already sees, through oneness or through the separateness of ordinary dealing, and only those still gripped by craving and ignorance fall short of it.
Read as present against past-and-future, with the Lord as supporter rather than equal partner in the pair.
Sat is what is present now; asat is what is past and what is yet to come. Since every conscious and unconscious thing, in every one of its states, is the Lord's own body, he abides with it in that state, and so it can rightly be said, it is I myself. But do not mishear this as being and non-being equally. It means he is the supporter of both, the ground within which the present and the past-and-future alike stand, without whom neither could stand at all.
Read as effect and cause under the Lord's rule, with Brahman himself beyond the pair.
Sat is again the effect, of seen form, and asat the cause, of unseen form, both under the Lord's control by the shared root beneath the two words. Yet this control is never a collapse of the Lord into what he rules. Scripture places Brahman beyond the existent and the non-existent together, supreme over creation even while both effect and cause remain fully his to govern.
The extant word here is thin; read honestly as a shared passage across four verses.
Abhinavagupta's surviving commentary does not gloss this verse alone; it treats 9.16 through 9.19 as one continuous unit and places its substance at 9.16, where he answers an objection that action's inner difference cannot lead to the undivided Blessed One, and states of this whole unit, including the line on heat and rain, that it teaches non-duality: the same power that binds the soul in bondage also, known and walked on its own path, brings that soul to attainment. Extending this conditionally to 9.19's own claim, one might read the heat and rain, the life and death, the being and non-being, as one power's apparent array, never truly divided from the awareness that recognizes it; but this is offered here only as a labeled extension, not as his verbatim word on this verse.
Read in plain terms, aimed at worship rather than analysis.
Standing as the sun he heats the world in the hot months and sends forth rain in the rains, at times holding it back and drawing it in again; life is simply life and death simply death, the gross seen thing and the subtle unseen thing both himself alone. The point of saying it this plainly is not philosophical precision but worship: nothing is left standing outside him for devotion to imagine as separate.
Read with care for the precise terms and the calendar behind them.
Fixing the calendar, eight months of drawing the rain up and four of pouring it down, shows withholding and giving as one ordered act rather than two wills at odds. And the terms are handled exactly: amrita and mrityu name the sustaining and ending of embodied life, while sat and asat name a thing's standing in relation to what makes it exist or not exist, never bare existence and nothingness. The claim, all this I am, is what finally grounds worship offered according to each seeker's own fitness.
All six readings agree there is nothing standing outside the Lord, seen or unseen, living or dying. They part on how exactly to hear sat and asat, as effect and cause, as present against past-and-future, or as gross against subtle, and on whether the Lord is finally identical with both or their supporting ground beyond them. Where the source itself is thin, as with the Shaiva reading built from a shared passage rather than a verse-specific gloss, this page keeps that honestly open rather than resolving it for you.
A question to carry
When something is withheld from you and something else is given, in the same season of your life, can you meet the same one Lord in both, without deciding in advance which was the kinder act?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
So let the ordinary weather of your days, what is given and what is withheld, what continues and what ends, rest in a single hand. Nothing falls outside him, so nothing you meet, in the light or in the hidden, need fall outside your remembrance of him.
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 is still unfolding the cosmic processes that are nothing but his own working, and here the sweep reaches its widest claim, grounding the worship of the great souls just described before the chapter turns to those who merely crave.
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.
What you call good weather and bad is one Lord at work; he scorches, withholds the rain, and pours it forth, each in its season, one ordered act, not two wills.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Madhusūdana · Rāmānuja · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Madhusūdana, and 2 others’ words
Krishna is still describing cosmic processes that are nothing but his own working, and here he takes up the sun and the rain. Standing as the sun, he scorches in the hot season, draws the rain up with some of his rays, holds it back for part of the year, and pours it down again when the rains come. Several sources add a precise calendar, gathering the earth's water as vapor for eight months and releasing it as rain across four.
He is the deathless, the very life by which creatures continue, and he is death, its ending; one Lord stands behind both, so nothing you fear escapes the one you trust.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Madhusūdana · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Madhusūdana, and 1 others’ words
What looks like a contradiction, one power both withholding and pouring, is read instead as a single ordered act stretched across the seasons. Nothing here suggests two wills at odds; it suggests one agent whose timing simply outruns any single moment's view of it.
The existent and the non-existent, the seen and the hidden, are both himself; non-existence here never means nothing, only what has not yet come into view.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhva · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 3 others’ words
Krishna then claims the two greatest opposites any embodied life knows: amrita, the deathless or the very life-force by which creatures continue, sometimes read as the nectar of the gods, and mrityu, the destruction that ends mortal life. By owning both, he refuses to be only the giver of life while some other power stands behind its ending.
This claim grounds the worship just described: knowing him as the self of everything leaves no place for devotion to imagine him absent, in ease or in hardship alike.
Across Advaita, Dvaita, ViśiṣṭādvaitaŚaṅkara · Madhva · Madhusūdana · RāmānujaIn Śaṅkara, Madhva, and 2 others’ words
Finally he says he is sat and asat, the existent and the non-existent, and that all of this is himself alone. A recurring way of hearing the pair takes sat as the effect, the gross and manifest thing, and asat as its cause, the subtle and unmanifest reality not yet come into name and form. Non-existent, on this reading, never means nothing; it names what is hidden rather than what fails to be.
Where the source is thin, as with Abhinavagupta's shared 9.16-19 passage, any extension of a school's reading is offered here honestly, as extension, never as the master's own recorded word.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
Because the Lord is all of this, life and death, the shown and the hidden, the worship spoken of just before this verse has firm ground to stand on. Knowing him as the self of everything, the wise worship him alone, each according to their own understanding, and this is what sets the great souls apart from those who are about to be described as merely craving their own desires.
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 sat as what is present now and asat as what is past and what is yet to come, and insists on how the identity must be heard. Because every conscious and unconscious thing, in every state, is the Lord's own body, he dwells with it in that state and mode, and so can say, it is I myself. But this is not a claim that being and non-being are equal masks he wears; it is a claim that he is the supporter of both, the ground without which neither the present nor the past-and-future could stand at all.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva also reads sat as effect and asat as cause, on the ground of the words themselves, the effect being of seen form and the cause of unseen form. He meets a sharp objection: if non-existence cannot be controlled, how can the Lord say he is both? The reply turns on the shared verbal root beneath being and non-being, so that both the manifest effect and the unmanifest cause are equally realities under his rule. But he will not let this collapse the Lord into what he rules; scripture itself places Brahman beyond the existent and the non-existent together, supreme over the very pair.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara keeps close to plain sense: standing as the sun he heats the world in the hot season and sends forth rain in the rains, at times holding it back and drawing it in again; amrita is simply life and mrityu simply death, sat the gross and seen, asat the subtle and unseen. All of this, he says, is the Lord alone, and the point of saying so is not abstract theology but worship, carrying forward the instruction just given to worship him, the One, in these many ways.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Madhusudana Sarasvati fixes the calendar precisely, eight months of drawing the rain up and four of releasing it, to show that withholding and pouring are one ordered act, not two wills. He is exact about the two term-pairs: amrita and mrityu name the sustaining and ending of embodied life, while sat and asat name, not existence and nonexistence as such, but a thing's standing in relation to what makes it exist or not exist. The claim 'all this I am' is what finally grounds worship offered according to each seeker's own fitness.
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, today, one thing that seemed withheld from you and one thing that was given, and hold them side by side without deciding which one was the kinder act. Let both rest in the same hand. You are not being asked to call the withholding good; you are being asked to stop assuming it came from somewhere else.
So let no season, no gain and no loss, no ordinary daylight and no hidden hour, fall outside your remembrance of him; all of it, he says, is himself alone.
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 is still describing cosmic processes that are nothing but his own working, and here he takes up the sun and the rain. Standing as the sun, he scorches in the hot season, draws the rain up with some of his rays, holds it back for part of the year, and pours it down again when the rains come. Several sources add a precise calendar, gathering the earth's water as vapor for eight months and releasing it as rain across four.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
What looks like a contradiction, one power both withholding and pouring, is read instead as a single ordered act stretched across the seasons. Nothing here suggests two wills at odds; it suggests one agent whose timing simply outruns any single moment's view of it.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Krishna then claims the two greatest opposites any embodied life knows: amrita, the deathless or the very life-force by which creatures continue, sometimes read as the nectar of the gods, and mrityu, the destruction that ends mortal life. By owning both, he refuses to be only the giver of life while some other power stands behind its ending.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Finally he says he is sat and asat, the existent and the non-existent, and that all of this is himself alone. A recurring way of hearing the pair takes sat as the effect, the gross and manifest thing, and asat as its cause, the subtle and unmanifest reality not yet come into name and form. Non-existent, on this reading, never means nothing; it names what is hidden rather than what fails to be.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhvācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Rāmānujācārya
Because the Lord is all of this, life and death, the shown and the hidden, the worship spoken of just before this verse has firm ground to stand on. Knowing him as the self of everything, the wise worship him alone, each according to their own understanding, and this is what sets the great souls apart from those who are about to be described as merely craving their own desires.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara reads sat as the effect and asat as its unmanifest cause, and is careful on both sides of the claim. The Lord is not thereby made utterly unreal, since in himself, and as both cause and effect, he is the real and what looks like the unreal from the effect's own vantage. The worship this grounds reaches those who see him through oneness or through the separateness of ordinary dealings, each according to their vision, while those still gripped by desire and ignorance fall short.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja reads sat as what is present now and asat as what is past and what is yet to come, and insists on how the identity must be heard. Because every conscious and unconscious thing, in every state, is the Lord's own body, he dwells with it in that state and mode, and so can say, it is I myself. But this is not a claim that being and non-being are equal masks he wears; it is a claim that he is the supporter of both, the ground without which neither the present nor the past-and-future could stand at all.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva also reads sat as effect and asat as cause, on the ground of the words themselves, the effect being of seen form and the cause of unseen form. He meets a sharp objection: if non-existence cannot be controlled, how can the Lord say he is both? The reply turns on the shared verbal root beneath being and non-being, so that both the manifest effect and the unmanifest cause are equally realities under his rule. But he will not let this collapse the Lord into what he rules; scripture itself places Brahman beyond the existent and the non-existent together, supreme over the very pair.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta's extant word here is thin: his commentary treats 9.16 through 9.19 as one unit and places its substance at 9.16, where he answers an objection that action's difference cannot lead to the Blessed One who is without parts, and states of that whole unit, including the line on heat and rain, that it teaches non-duality, the same power that binds the soul in bondage also bringing it, known and walked on its own path, to attainment. Extending this conditionally to 9.19's own claim, one might read heat and rain, life and death, being and non-being, as this one power's apparent array, never actually divided from the awareness that recognizes it; but this extension is flagged as a reading built on the shared passage, not a sentence fixed to this verse by name.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara keeps close to plain sense: standing as the sun he heats the world in the hot season and sends forth rain in the rains, at times holding it back and drawing it in again; amrita is simply life and mrityu simply death, sat the gross and seen, asat the subtle and unseen. All of this, he says, is the Lord alone, and the point of saying so is not abstract theology but worship, carrying forward the instruction just given to worship him, the One, in these many ways.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Madhusudana Sarasvati fixes the calendar precisely, eight months of drawing the rain up and four of releasing it, to show that withholding and pouring are one ordered act, not two wills. He is exact about the two term-pairs: amrita and mrityu name the sustaining and ending of embodied life, while sat and asat name, not existence and nonexistence as such, but a thing's standing in relation to what makes it exist or not exist. The claim 'all this I am' is what finally grounds worship offered according to each seeker's own fitness.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If the same Lord is the deathless and death, the existent and the non-existent, is he simply beyond good and evil, indifferent to which one falls on me?
Owning both death and the deathless is not the same as being indifferent to either. It means there is no second power behind the losses you fear, no rival darkness operating outside the one you trust; what you dread and what you long for both happen within a single, ultimately trustworthy reality.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Ramanuja's reading softens the worry directly: the Lord is not being and non-being equally, as if he had no preference and no care. He is the supporter of both, present within each state of everything as its inner ground, which is a nearer, more personal claim than mere impartiality.
Rāmānujācārya
And the very next teaching, that the wise worship him according to their own fitness because he is all of this, shows the point was never to make him remote. It was to remove every last place where your devotion might wrongly assume he is absent, including the hard seasons.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhvācārya
Contemplation
Notice, today, one thing that seemed withheld from you and one thing that was given, and hold them side by side without deciding which one was the kinder act. Let both rest in the same hand. You are not being asked to call the withholding good; you are being asked to stop assuming it came from somewhere else.
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.