Every sacrifice reaches Krishna, its enjoyer and lord; the fall is in not knowing him.
Krishna names himself the enjoyer and the lord of every sacrifice: whatever god the offering is set before, he is the one who receives it and the one who answers it. The worshippers who fall do not fail in effort or exactness; they misjudge the receiver, not knowing that the one their offering reaches is him.
For I am the enjoyer and the lord of all sacrifices. But they do not know me truly, and so they fall.
Its opening 'for' (hi) ties it to the verse just before, where faithful worship of other gods was said to reach Krishna yet to lack right rule; here he gives the reason on both sides.
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.
Whatever god you set your offering before, it is Krishna who receives it; he is the enjoyer and the lord of every sacrifice without exception.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Bhedābheda, Bhakti, Śuddhādvaita, and the modern voicesŚaṅkara · Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana · Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati · Rāmānuja · Vedānta Deśika · Bhāskara · Śrīdhara · Viśvanātha · Baladeva · Jñāneśvar · Sivananda · Vallabha · Puruṣottama · RamsukhdasIn Śaṅkara, Ānandagiri, and 14 others’ words
Krishna states plainly that he alone is both the enjoyer (bhokta, the one who actually receives the offering) and the lord (prabhu) of every sacrifice. Most commentators stress that this covers all sacrifices without exception: both the shrauta rites laid down in the Veda and the smarta rites laid down in the remembered texts. The reasoning is that whatever deity a person sacrifices to, that deity is only a form Krishna stands in; so the offering, by whatever route, lands on him. He cited his own earlier word for this: 'I Myself am the adhiyajna here' (Gita 8.4), meaning he is the very inner principle of every offering. The word 'hi' ('for') signals that this verse gives the reason behind what came just before about worship that lacks right rule.
And the reward does not come from the deity's own hand; the Lord standing within both takes the offering and grants what it earns.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Śuddhādvaita, Bhakti, and the modern voicesMadhusūdana · Dhanapati · Rāmānuja · Vedānta Deśika · Vallabha · Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara · Viśvanātha · Baladeva · Nīlakaṇṭha · SivanandaIn Madhusūdana, Dhanapati, and 9 others’ words
Several commentators draw out a third role packed into the verse: Krishna is not only the receiver of the offering but also the giver of its fruit (phala-data). The deity a worshipper turns to does not, on its own, hand out the reward; the reward comes from Krishna standing within as the inner controller (antaryamin). This is why the verse names a double role with two uses of 'and' (ca): the Lord both takes the offering and grants what it earns. The lesser deity is, in effect, a face; the power that answers the sacrifice is one.
The fault is not in the toil or the form of the rite; it is in not knowing whom your worship is reaching.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Bhakti, Śuddhādvaita, and the modern voicesŚaṅkara · Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana · Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati · Vedānta Deśika · Viśvanātha · Jñāneśvar · Sivananda · Rāmānuja · VallabhaIn Śaṅkara, Ānandagiri, and 9 others’ words
The failure named in the second line is not a failure of effort but of recognition. The worshippers 'do not know me in truth' (na tu mam abhijananti tattvena): they do not realize that the one they reach is Krishna himself. The conviction that 'the sun alone is supreme, the sun alone gives me my fruit' misses that Narayana is the one standing as the sun, producing the faith and bestowing the fruit. Because the receiver is misjudged, the worship is counted as 'not according to rule' (avidhi-purvaka) even when the rite is performed with great toil and exact form.
Such worship is not wasted; you reach the world you aimed at, but when the merit that carried you there is spent, you slip back.
Across Advaita, Bhedābheda, Bhakti, Śuddhādvaita, and the modern voicesŚaṅkara · Madhusūdana · Dhanapati · Nīlakaṇṭha · Bhāskara · Śrīdhara · Baladeva · Vallabha · Puruṣottama · Sivananda · RamsukhdasIn Śaṅkara, Madhusūdana, and 9 others’ words
Because they did not know whom they were truly worshipping, such worshippers 'fall' (chyavanti). The commentators explain this concretely: they do reach the world of the deity they aimed at and enjoy its reward, but that reward is finite. When the merit (the karma) that produced the enjoyment is spent, they slip down from that heaven and return to the world of mortals to take up a body again. So the verse is not denying that idol or deity worship 'works'; it is showing why its result is small and impermanent: it is bounded by the limit of the merit behind it.
Worship the very same deity knowing it is the Lord you reach, and you do not fall; the difference of destiny rests on your inner stance.
Across Advaita, Bhakti, Śuddhādvaita, ViśiṣṭādvaitaMadhusūdana · Śrīdhara · Viśvanātha · Vallabha · Puruṣottama · RāmānujaIn Madhusūdana, Śrīdhara, and 4 others’ words
Many commentators add the bright counter-case implied by the verse: the one who worships the very same deity but with the knowledge that Krishna is the inner controller present within it does not fall. Worship offered to the Lord as the self of all deities is liberating; worship offered to the deity as if it were a separate, final lord is binding. The difference of destiny rests not on the deity reached but on the worshipper's inner stance (bhava): whether he knows whom he is reaching.
This is the shared ground; it can be carried as it is. Below is where they differ.
Where they differthe divergence
Advaita Vedānta, in their fuller words
These commentators read the verse through non-difference: Krishna is the enjoyer and lord 'as the very self of the deity' and 'the inmost non-different' one. The worshippers' error is failing to recognize that there is no other to be worshipped than Vasudeva, who alone stands in the form of the Vasus and the rest. Their 'falling' is described as slipping into the pit of samsara for want of knowledge-firmness. The liberating alternative is right vision arising on the path of flame, after which one is freed at the end of the heavenly enjoyment; the whole movement turns on dissolving the apparent separateness of deity and Self.
Viśiṣṭādvaita, in their fuller words
These commentators frame the verse as the inner mechanism of the lesser fruit explained in the prior chapter. They marvel that men engaged in one and the same rite reap utterly different results purely by a difference of resolve: some get a slight, perishing fruit, others attain the supreme Person of limitless bliss and never return. The decisive fault is a 'misappraisal of the receiver': the worship in fact reaches the Lord, but the worshipper expects the fruit from the deity directly, and so is sent to the lesser destination. The Lord remains a distinct supreme Person whom the offering reaches and who alone grants the fruit.
Bhedābheda, in their fuller words
This commentator keeps the plain claim that Krishna abides 'in this or that form as Indra and the rest' as enjoyer and lord, and reads the 'falling' simply as undergoing a return to rebirth. He immediately ties the verse to the next teaching, that those vowed to the gods go to the gods and those who sacrifice to Krishna come to Krishna, so the worshipper's destination tracks exactly the object of his vow.
Śuddhādvaita, in their fuller words
These commentators read the deities as Krishna's limb-portions (amsa) who abide as his body, with Krishna dwelling in them as their self; he is also present as the very form of the sacrifice and its means. Purushottama draws a fine point: even when one worships a portion, what is gained is only the pleasing of that single portion, not the pleasing of the all-ruler. Yet because watering the root benefits the branch, worship rightly offered to a deity as the Lord's portion, knowing his wish, also pleases the Lord and brings the portion's manifestation; done in ignorance of the root it dulls into mere karma and ends in falling. Vallabha sums it up: the difference of inner disposition (bhava) alone is the cause of the difference of fruit.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
These devotional commentators hold both kinds of worship under one truth: the difference is not in the deity reached but in whether the worshipper knows whom he is reaching. Vishvanatha lays out the false conviction word for word ('the sun alone is the Supreme Lord') against the true one (Narayana alone is the sun, the producer of faith, the giver of fruit), and concludes that worship of the Lord's majesties must be done only as preceded by knowing them as his majesties. Jnaneshwari gives the homely image that offerings to gods and forefathers, like Ganges water, must be returned into the Ganges herself; offered in 'different' (anani) faith, the sacrifice never reaches the Supreme but goes only to the lesser deities it was meant for.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Sivananda restates the classical reading plainly: Krishna as the inner Ruler is the Lord of all sacrifices, present at the beginning and end of every rite, and those who worship other gods without recognizing him, not having consecrated their actions to him, return to the mortal world once their merit is spent. Ramsukhdas, non-sectarian and devotional, widens the verse beyond ritual to every good and dutiful act: yajna, charity, austerity, pilgrimage, vow, and one's ordinary varna-ashrama duties; Krishna is the enjoyer and reward-holder of all of them, and the malik (owner) of the whole creation, which he made from himself for his own joy. He gives a striking everyday gloss: since all is Vasudeva, feeding a deity, giving charity, serving the suffering, even giving bread to dogs is service of Krishna received in those many forms; the two great obstacles are holding oneself the bhokta of pleasures and the malik of possessions, and one's 'falling' is set right the moment one remembers that the Lord alone is the true enjoyer and owner.
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
Ramsukhdas turns this verse into a daily practice of seeing. He names the two quiet traps that keep us turned away from God: holding ourselves to be the enjoyer (bhokta) of our pleasures, and the owner (malik) of what we gather. From these the mind turns inside-out, the way a child once cradled by its mother grows up, builds its life around its own wants, and forgets her. The falling the verse warns of is just this forgetting. So his guidance is to keep remembering the simple truth that the Lord alone is the real enjoyer and owner of everything. Then he makes that remembrance concrete and warm: because all is Vasudeva, the good you do anywhere reaches him in its many forms. Feed someone hungry and it is he, in that person's form, who is fed; care for the sick, water a plant, give grain to birds or bread to a dog, and that service reaches him alone, for there is no one else besides him. Lived this way, your duties no longer bind you, because you are not chasing a private reward; you stay unclouded (nirlipta) in your work, never fall from your true nature, and rest in him alone. The moment that awareness returns, he says, you rise again into God and are set on the right path, and for such a one there is no further falling.
Today, when some good passes through your hands, remember whom it is feeding.
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 states plainly that he alone is both the enjoyer (bhokta, the one who actually receives the offering) and the lord (prabhu) of every sacrifice. Most commentators stress that this covers all sacrifices without exception: both the shrauta rites laid down in the Veda and the smarta rites laid down in the remembered texts. The reasoning is that whatever deity a person sacrifices to, that deity is only a form Krishna stands in; so the offering, by whatever route, lands on him. He cited his own earlier word for this: 'I Myself am the adhiyajna here' (Gita 8.4), meaning he is the very inner principle of every offering. The word 'hi' ('for') signals that this verse gives the reason behind what came just before about worship that lacks right rule.
Braided from 16 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika · Śrī Bhāskara · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Śrīla Baladeva · Sant Jñāneśvar · Swami Sivananda · Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama · Swami Ramsukhdas
Several commentators draw out a third role packed into the verse: Krishna is not only the receiver of the offering but also the giver of its fruit (phala-data). The deity a worshipper turns to does not, on its own, hand out the reward; the reward comes from Krishna standing within as the inner controller (antaryamin). This is why the verse names a double role with two uses of 'and' (ca): the Lord both takes the offering and grants what it earns. The lesser deity is, in effect, a face; the power that answers the sacrifice is one.
Braided from 11 commentators
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Dhanapati Sūri · Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika · Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Śrīla Baladeva · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Swami Sivananda
The failure named in the second line is not a failure of effort but of recognition. The worshippers 'do not know me in truth' (na tu mam abhijananti tattvena): they do not realize that the one they reach is Krishna himself. The conviction that 'the sun alone is supreme, the sun alone gives me my fruit' misses that Narayana is the one standing as the sun, producing the faith and bestowing the fruit. Because the receiver is misjudged, the worship is counted as 'not according to rule' (avidhi-purvaka) even when the rite is performed with great toil and exact form.
Braided from 11 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Vedānta Deśika · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Sant Jñāneśvar · Swami Sivananda · Rāmānujācārya · Vallabhācārya
Because they did not know whom they were truly worshipping, such worshippers 'fall' (chyavanti). The commentators explain this concretely: they do reach the world of the deity they aimed at and enjoy its reward, but that reward is finite. When the merit (the karma) that produced the enjoyment is spent, they slip down from that heaven and return to the world of mortals to take up a body again. So the verse is not denying that idol or deity worship 'works'; it is showing why its result is small and impermanent: it is bounded by the limit of the merit behind it.
Braided from 11 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Śrī Bhāskara · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Baladeva · Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama · Swami Sivananda · Swami Ramsukhdas
Many commentators add the bright counter-case implied by the verse: the one who worships the very same deity but with the knowledge that Krishna is the inner controller present within it does not fall. Worship offered to the Lord as the self of all deities is liberating; worship offered to the deity as if it were a separate, final lord is binding. The difference of destiny rests not on the deity reached but on the worshipper's inner stance (bhava): whether he knows whom he is reaching.
Braided from 6 commentators
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama · Rāmānujācārya
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
These commentators read the verse through non-difference: Krishna is the enjoyer and lord 'as the very self of the deity' and 'the inmost non-different' one. The worshippers' error is failing to recognize that there is no other to be worshipped than Vasudeva, who alone stands in the form of the Vasus and the rest. Their 'falling' is described as slipping into the pit of samsara for want of knowledge-firmness. The liberating alternative is right vision arising on the path of flame, after which one is freed at the end of the heavenly enjoyment; the whole movement turns on dissolving the apparent separateness of deity and Self.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri
Viśiṣṭādvaita
These commentators frame the verse as the inner mechanism of the lesser fruit explained in the prior chapter. They marvel that men engaged in one and the same rite reap utterly different results purely by a difference of resolve: some get a slight, perishing fruit, others attain the supreme Person of limitless bliss and never return. The decisive fault is a 'misappraisal of the receiver': the worship in fact reaches the Lord, but the worshipper expects the fruit from the deity directly, and so is sent to the lesser destination. The Lord remains a distinct supreme Person whom the offering reaches and who alone grants the fruit.
Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika
Bhedabheda
This commentator keeps the plain claim that Krishna abides 'in this or that form as Indra and the rest' as enjoyer and lord, and reads the 'falling' simply as undergoing a return to rebirth. He immediately ties the verse to the next teaching, that those vowed to the gods go to the gods and those who sacrifice to Krishna come to Krishna, so the worshipper's destination tracks exactly the object of his vow.
Śrī Bhāskara
Śuddhādvaita
These commentators read the deities as Krishna's limb-portions (amsa) who abide as his body, with Krishna dwelling in them as their self; he is also present as the very form of the sacrifice and its means. Purushottama draws a fine point: even when one worships a portion, what is gained is only the pleasing of that single portion, not the pleasing of the all-ruler. Yet because watering the root benefits the branch, worship rightly offered to a deity as the Lord's portion, knowing his wish, also pleases the Lord and brings the portion's manifestation; done in ignorance of the root it dulls into mere karma and ends in falling. Vallabha sums it up: the difference of inner disposition (bhava) alone is the cause of the difference of fruit.
Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama
Bhakti
These devotional commentators hold both kinds of worship under one truth: the difference is not in the deity reached but in whether the worshipper knows whom he is reaching. Vishvanatha lays out the false conviction word for word ('the sun alone is the Supreme Lord') against the true one (Narayana alone is the sun, the producer of faith, the giver of fruit), and concludes that worship of the Lord's majesties must be done only as preceded by knowing them as his majesties. Jnaneshwari gives the homely image that offerings to gods and forefathers, like Ganges water, must be returned into the Ganges herself; offered in 'different' (anani) faith, the sacrifice never reaches the Supreme but goes only to the lesser deities it was meant for.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Śrīla Baladeva · Sant Jñāneśvar
Modern
Sivananda restates the classical reading plainly: Krishna as the inner Ruler is the Lord of all sacrifices, present at the beginning and end of every rite, and those who worship other gods without recognizing him, not having consecrated their actions to him, return to the mortal world once their merit is spent. Ramsukhdas, non-sectarian and devotional, widens the verse beyond ritual to every good and dutiful act: yajna, charity, austerity, pilgrimage, vow, and one's ordinary varna-ashrama duties; Krishna is the enjoyer and reward-holder of all of them, and the malik (owner) of the whole creation, which he made from himself for his own joy. He gives a striking everyday gloss: since all is Vasudeva, feeding a deity, giving charity, serving the suffering, even giving bread to dogs is service of Krishna received in those many forms; the two great obstacles are holding oneself the bhokta of pleasures and the malik of possessions, and one's 'falling' is set right the moment one remembers that the Lord alone is the true enjoyer and owner.
Swami Sivananda · Swami Ramsukhdas
A Seeker Asks
If my offering reaches Krishna no matter which deity I worship, why does it matter whether I know that, and why should sincere worship of another god leave me worse off than worship that names him correctly?
The offering does reach the Lord either way; that is exactly the point of the verse. He is the enjoyer and lord of every sacrifice, standing within whichever deity you turn to, so no sincere worship is wasted and the deity you aimed at does grant you its reward.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrī Bhāskara · Swami Sivananda
What differs is not the sincerity but the size and permanence of the result, and that follows from what you took yourself to be reaching. If you fixed your aim on a finite deity as the final lord, you get a finite fruit: you reach that deity's world, enjoy it, and when the merit behind it runs out you slip back to a human birth. The reward is bounded by the limit of the merit that earned it.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Dhanapati Sūri · Vallabhācārya · Swami Sivananda · Rāmānujācārya
If instead you know that the one you are reaching is the Lord himself, present as the inner controller of that very deity, the same act opens onto the unlimited: you are not turned back at the end of a heaven but carried toward the supreme and no-return. The difference of destiny rests on the inner stance (bhava), on whom you knew you were worshipping, not on the outward deity or the exactness of the rite.
Braided from 6 commentators
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Contemplation
Ramsukhdas turns this verse into a daily practice of seeing. He names the two quiet traps that keep us turned away from God: holding ourselves to be the enjoyer (bhokta) of our pleasures, and the owner (malik) of what we gather. From these the mind turns inside-out, the way a child once cradled by its mother grows up, builds its life around its own wants, and forgets her. The falling the verse warns of is just this forgetting. So his guidance is to keep remembering the simple truth that the Lord alone is the real enjoyer and owner of everything. Then he makes that remembrance concrete and warm: because all is Vasudeva, the good you do anywhere reaches him in its many forms. Feed someone hungry and it is he, in that person's form, who is fed; care for the sick, water a plant, give grain to birds or bread to a dog, and that service reaches him alone, for there is no one else besides him. Lived this way, your duties no longer bind you, because you are not chasing a private reward; you stay unclouded (nirlipta) in your work, never fall from your true nature, and rest in him alone. The moment that awareness returns, he says, you rise again into God and are set on the right path, and for such a one there is no further falling.
Sit with this · Swami Ramsukhdas
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, tap a name in The seating.