If this dharma is described as 'easy' (svasukara) and yet most people miss it, what exactly constitutes śraddhā (faith) — is it volitional, dispositional, or the result of prior karmic fitness (adhikāra)?

Those who have no faith in this teaching never reach Me, and keep turning on the road of death and rebirth. See seven-school commentary at https://gita.ekrasworks.com/gita/9/3.

Śaṅkara and Śrīdhara both use the upāyāntara (other means) argument: does this verse rule out non-bhakti paths to liberation, or only certain corrupted approaches to them?

Those who have no faith in this teaching never reach Me, and keep turning on the road of death and rebirth. See seven-school commentary at https://gita.ekrasworks.com/gita/9/3.

Rāmānuja reads Kṛṣṇa's tone as one of wonder (āścarya) at people rejecting what is supremely loveable — what does this emotional register reveal about the verse's rhetorical function in the chapter arc of the Rāja-Vidyā section?

Those who have no faith in this teaching never reach Me, and keep turning on the road of death and rebirth. See seven-school commentary at https://gita.ekrasworks.com/gita/9/3.

Madhusūdana locates the failure in a corrupted antaḥkaraṇa rather than moral wickedness per se — does this frame the problem as epistemic (wrong knowledge) rather than ethical (wrong action), and what does that imply for remediation?

Those who have no faith in this teaching never reach Me, and keep turning on the road of death and rebirth. See seven-school commentary at https://gita.ekrasworks.com/gita/9/3.

Vallabha's reading of dharma as bhajana-with-knowledge collapses a typical Advaita hierarchy (karma→jñāna→bhakti) into a single compound — how does this affect the structure of the entire path described across BG 9?

Those who have no faith in this teaching never reach Me, and keep turning on the road of death and rebirth. See seven-school commentary at https://gita.ekrasworks.com/gita/9/3.

The verse ends with 'mṛtyu-saṃsāra-vartmani' (the road of death-bound rebirth) — why does Kṛṣṇa foreground death specifically rather than rebirth or suffering? What is the rhetorical weight of mṛtyu as the defining qualifier of saṃsāra here?

Those who have no faith in this teaching never reach Me, and keep turning on the road of death and rebirth. See seven-school commentary at https://gita.ekrasworks.com/gita/9/3.

All schools agree on the negative consequence but diverge on what 'dharma' means in the first pāda — does this controlled divergence demonstrate that the bounded polysemy of this verse is itself the source of its multi-school fecundity?

Those who have no faith in this teaching never reach Me, and keep turning on the road of death and rebirth. See seven-school commentary at https://gita.ekrasworks.com/gita/9/3.

BG 9.3 — Rāja-Vidyā-Rāja-Guhya-Yoga

Bhagavad Gītā 9.3Chapter 9 · Rāja-Vidyā-Rāja-Guhya-Yoga · Krishna → Arjuna · Paranṭapa · anuṣṭubh

अश्रद्दधानाः पुरुषा धर्मस्यास्य परंतप ।

अप्राप्य मां निवर्तन्ते मृत्युसंसारवर्त्मनि ॥

aśraddadhānāḥ puruṣā dharmasyāsya paraṃtapa

aprāpya māṃ nivartante mṛtyu-saṃsāra-vartmani

spokensingle-voice recital; rendered via IndicF5 conditioned on a Sanskrit reference clip

meaning

Those who have no faith in this teaching never reach Me, and keep turning on the road of death and rebirth.

Bhāṣyakāra purports

Śaṅkaraadvaita
Those who lack śraddhā (faith) in this dharma — the knowledge of the ātman — are nāstikas (non-believers) who cling to the view that the body alone is the self, the very doctrine of the asuras. Without grasping even the means of reaching Me — bhakti toward the path itself — they do not attain Me, the Parameśvara (Supreme Lord). They revolve inevitably on the mṛtyu-saṃsāra-vartman (the road of death-bound rebirth), cycling through hells, animal births, and lower existences.
divergence: Śaṅkara: ‘asurāṇām upaniṣadaṃ dehamātrātmadaśanam eva pratipannāḥ’ — they have adopted the secret doctrine of the demons, seeing only body as self. ‘Mātpprāptimārgasādhanabhedabhaktimātram api aprāpya' — they fail to attain even the bhakti that is a means to the path of reaching Me.
Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita
This dharma is upāsana (meditative worship) — itself of the nature of the supreme good, the sādhana (means) for attaining Me who am of surpassingly beloved form. Those who, having reached the eligibility to take up this path, nonetheless remain without viśvāsa (trusting faith), do not attain Me and revolve in the saṃsāra-vartman characterized by mṛtyu (death). How extraordinary is this wonder (āścarya), says Bhagavān — that what is supremely loveable and supremely liberating is still rejected.
divergence: Rāmānuja: ‘niratiśayapriyamadvijayatayā svayaṃ niratiśayapriyarūpasya paramanihśreyasasvarūpamtprāptisādhanasya avyayasya upādānayogyadaśāṃ prāpya aśraddadhānāḥ’ — having reached the fit condition for taking up this eternal sādhana, they remain without faith.
Madhvadvaita
Reconstructed from the dvaita school's doctrine, not translated from Madhva's commentary at this verse.
Aśraddadhānāḥ puruṣāḥ — those who lack śraddhā (faith) in dharmasya asya, this dharma of direct bhakti to the svatantra (independently real, self-sufficient) Lord Hari — aprāpya māṃ nivartante: without reaching Him, they turn back. They return to mṛtyu-saṃsāra-vartmani, the path of death and rebirth. The paratantra (eternally dependent) jīva who does not recognize its own utter dependence (pāratantryā) on Hari, and who therefore does not take up bhakti as ontological subordination to Him, cannot attain His prāpti (arrival at Him). Arrival is real, not dissolution — the jīva remains distinct from the Lord even in liberation, and bheda (real distinction) between Lord and jīva is never annulled. Without śraddhā grounded in that recognition of pañca-bheda (the five-fold real distinction: Lord–jīva, Lord–matter, jīva–jīva, jīva–matter, matter–matter), the jīva gains nothing and revolves in saṃsāra by its own accumulated karma.
divergence: No Madhva or Jayatīrtha bhāṣya is extant on this verse. The reading is voiced directly from Dvaita siddhānta as applied to the mūla.
Vallabhaśuddhādvaita
Vallabha reads dharma here as bhajana (devotional service) — or, per the variant reading, as the knowledge that is joined with bhajana. Those persons without śraddhā (faith) in this dharma fail to reach Me, Puruṣottama (the Supreme Person), and remain deeply enmired in the saṃsāra characterized by mṛtyu. In Puṣṭi-mārga terms, śraddhā is not mere assent but the receptive openness to Kṛṣṇa's prasāda (grace-gift); without it, no amount of effort reaches the Lord of līlā.
divergence: Vallabha: ‘dharmasya bhajanalakṣaṇasya, pāṭhāntare tu dharmasya tatsahitajñānasya vā śraddhārahitāḥ’ — faith-less toward the dharma defined as bhajana, or toward knowledge united with bhajana. ‘Mṛtyurūpe saṃsāre nitarāṃ vartante' — they truly abide in the saṃsāra of the form of death.
Śrīdharabhakti
Śrīdhara poses a direct question: if this path is easy to practice (svasukara), who then remains in saṃsāra? The answer: those who refuse this dharma defined as bhakti joined with jñāna — who will not accept it with āstikya (the conviction of its validity) — even if they strain toward liberation by other means (upāyāntara), they fail to reach Me and wander on the saṃsāra-vartman pervaded by mṛtyu.
divergence: Śrīdhara: ‘imaṃ dharmam aśraddadhānā āstikyenāsvīkurvantaḥ upāyāntareṇa matprāptaye kṛtaprayatnā api mām aprāpya mṛtyuyukte saṃsāravartmani nivartante' — even those who strive hard by other means, if they lack āstikya toward this dharma, do not reach Me.
Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti
Madhusūdana presses the logical puzzle: if this dharma is both easy and supremely excellent, why does anyone remain in saṃsāra? The answer is that some — their antaḥkaraṇa (inner instrument) corrupted by heterodox reasoning opposed to the Veda — regard the scriptural means as invalid. Though they exert effort by their self-devised methods (svamati-kalpita-upāya), the absence of the śāstra-prescribed means ensures they never attain Me, and fail to attain even the sādhana for reaching Me. They revolve without end through janana-maraṇa cycles — hells, animal births, and low wombs.
divergence: Madhusūdana: ‘vedavirodhikuhetudaśanadūṣitāntaḥkaraṇatayā prāmāṇyam amanyamānāḥ pāpakāriṇo asurasaṃpadam ārūḍhāḥ svamatikaipitena upāyena kathaṃcid yatamānā api śāstravidhitopāyabhāvāt aprāpya māṃ’ — corrupted inner organs, trusting heterodox counter-reasons, despite effort, lacking the śāstra-means, never reach Me.

ekras · bhāṣya

Those without shraddha in this dharma — not reaching Me — return to the road of mrityu and samsara. The verse is precise about who fails. Not those who lack effort, not those who lack ability, but those who lack shraddha — the conviction that the teaching itself is valid. Without that, no quantity of practice helps.

Shankara reads ashraddadhana as nastika — those who cling to the doctrine that the body alone is the self, the very view of the asuras. Without grasping even the means of reaching Krishna, they do not attain him; they return endlessly to the road of mrityu-samsara. The teaching is offered to all; not all hear it.

Madhusudana presses the logical puzzle: if this dharma is both easy and supremely excellent, why does anyone remain in samsara? The answer: some, their antahkarana corrupted by heterodox reasoning opposed to the Veda, regard the scriptural means as invalid. Even though they exist within the same shastra-environment as the believers, the teaching cannot land where shraddha is absent.

Ramanuja reads dharma here as upasana itself — the meditative worship, the sadhana for attaining Krishna. Those who reach the eligibility to take up this path yet remain without vishvasa — trusting faith — do not attain him. The eligibility is the entry; the shraddha is what allows the entry to land.

Madhva keeps the bheda-frame strict: those without shraddha in dharma — direct bhakti to svatantra Hari — do not reach him. They return to the path of death and samsara; the eternal distinction between jiva and Hari is preserved, but the relationship that would draw the jiva toward Hari is not formed.

Vallabha reads dharma here as bhajana — devotional service — or, per the variant, as the knowledge joined with bhajana. Without shraddha in this, none reach Purushottama.

Shridhara poses a direct question: if this path is svasukara, who remains in samsara? The answer: those who refuse this dharma defined as bhakti joined with jnana — who will not accept it with astikya — even if they strain for liberation by other means.

Context

where

Chapter 9 · Rāja-Vidyā-Rāja-Guhya-Yoga · meter anuṣṭubh

who speaks

Krishna → Arjuna · vocative Paranṭapa

preceded by — BG 9.2

This is the sovereign knowledge, the supreme secret, the highest purifier: its fruit is seen directly, it conforms to dharma, it is easy to practice, and it never wears out.

What's going on

Those who have no faith in this teaching never reach Me, and keep turning on the road of death and rebirth.

Vyavahāra · try it in your life

Advaita

When you find yourself substituting intellectual debate about consciousness for actual inquiry into who is witnessing the debate — recognize the asura-doctrine in action. The failure Śaṅkara identifies is treating the body-mind complex as the final self while philosophizing about liberation. The practice: one pointed sitting with the question 'who am I?' each morning before the reasoning mind engages, not as technique but as the only honest move when body-as-self is the default stance.

Viśiṣṭādvaita

Rāmānuja's āścarya (wonder) reframe applies whenever you observe yourself capable of upāsana — qualified, with the texts and teachers available — and still postponing. The everyday register: you have access to the practice (a teacher, a tradition, a daily time slot), you know it matters, and something unnamed is withholding full viśvāsa (trust). Rāmānuja's insight is that this is astonishing, not merely unfortunate. Name the withholding; ask whether it is intellectual scruple or something closer to fear of the beloved's claim on you.

show all 6

Dvaita

Dvaita's pāratiṃtrya (total dependence) principle applied daily: notice the moments when you strategize your own liberation — curating your practice, selecting only the teachings that resonate, maintaining authorship over the path. This verse's warning, read through Dvaita, is that self-managed spirituality without full acknowledgment of Hari's sovereignty keeps one cycling. The discipline: at each decision point in the practice, explicitly acknowledge that even the impulse to seek belongs to Hari, not to you.

Śuddhādvaita

Vallabha's co-constitution of jñāna and bhajana means that knowledge pursued without love, and love pursued without clarity, both miss the mark. In daily terms: a study session without genuine longing for Kṛṣṇa becomes mere scholarship; a devotional hour performed without understanding what you are offering becomes ritual sentiment. The practice Vallabha implies is checking whether knowledge is warming into love — whether understanding Kṛṣṇa's nature generates desire to be near him, not just accurate propositions about him.

Bhakti

Śrīdhara's upāyāntara clause is the most practically diagnostic: identify any 'other means' you are relying on to reach what matters most — productivity systems instead of presence, therapy instead of surrender, philosophical clarity instead of practice. His point is not that these are worthless but that without āstikya (the conviction that this dharma is the actual path), they become substitutes. The daily exercise: each week, name the one substitute you are most heavily running, and ask whether you have genuinely accepted this path or are still negotiating.

Advaita-Bhakti

Madhusūdana's antaḥkaraṇa-corruption frame is the most actionable: epistemic hygiene matters. When clever reasoning leads you away from the practice — when you find yourself concluding that your current state is fine, the teaching doesn't really apply to you, or the tradition is historically conditioned — treat this as the Veda-opposing kuhetudaśana (bad-logic vision) he describes. The practice: each time you reason your way out of the practice, pause and ask whether the reasoning is serving clarity or serving avoidance. One honest answer per day is enough.

Adhiṣṭhāna · substrate signature

substratev2.6-frozen

parserByT5-Sanskrit-multitask (Nehrdich/Hellwig/Keutzer EMNLP 2024)

mūlaGRETIL e-text of the Bhagavadgītā with Śaṅkara's commentary (data entry: Gaudiya Grantha Mandira) for chapters 1-17; sanskritdocuments.org sd_bgnew.itx for chapter 18; ingested via a local Ambuda TEI build; per-verse repairs logged in post_generation_repairs

show all metadata

weightsa=1 · b=0.01 · e_v=0.005 · z=0.2 · h=0 · th=0.01

anchorfit on Ramsukhdas's Sādhak Sañjīvanī (1980), frozen across the eight-commentator panel; cross-validated R@4 = 71.6% on Śaṅkara

extracted2026-04-21

methodPaper 1, Section II.B

↓ view raw per-verse object (JSON)↗ per-verse-object schema ↗ substrate code (MIT) + data (CC-BY 4.0)

The schema generalizes to any bounded-polysemy corpus with discrete primary text units, attested witness traditions, identifiable schools, and formal substrate. Port the per-verse object; refit weights on a domain-appropriate Layer-3 anchor; ship.

Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 9, Verse 3: Krishna to Arjuna — Rāja-Vidyā-Rāja-Guhya-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports