Sanskrit
तस्मात्प्रणम्य प्रणिधाय कायम् प्रसादये त्वामहमीशमीड्यम् । पितेव पुत्रस्य सखेव सख्युः प्रियः प्रियायार्हसि देव सोढुम् ॥
tasmāt praṇamya praṇidhāya kāyaṃ prasādaye tvām aham īśam īḍyam piteva putrasya sakheva sakhyuḥ priyaḥ priyāyārhasi deva soḍhum
Translation
Therefore I fall before Thee; with my body I worship as it fitting; bless Thou me. As father with the son, as friend with friend, With the beloved as lover, bear with me.
Annie Besant · The Bhagavad-Gita, translated by Annie Besant (4th ed., 1922) — Wikisource · Public Domain
Explanation
Verse 43 re-ranked the relationship as father and worshipped Guru; this verse immediately asks for tolerance using father-son, friend-friend, and lover-beloved in the same line — three pairings, each intimate, each asymmetric in a different way. Nothing here is a retraction of the earlier apology; it’s a request that the very closeness just called presumptuous be permitted anyway, on the understanding that it flows one way, as something graciously borne rather than rightfully claimed. The prostration (“praṇamya… kāyam,” bowing with the body) makes the asymmetry physical as well as verbal. Three intimate, asymmetric pairings — father/son, friend/friend, lover/beloved — asking that the very closeness just called presumptuous be permitted anyway, as something graciously borne rather than rightfully claimed. The bodily prostration makes the asymmetry physical.
Study deeper
Word by word
- tasmāt praṇamya praṇidhāya kāyaṃतस्मात् प्रणंय प्रणिधाय कायं
- therefore, bowing and prostrating the body (tasmāt + praṇamya + praṇidhāya + kāyam)
- prasādaye tvām aham īśam īḍyamप्रसादये त्वां अहं ईशं ईड्यं
- I seek your grace, O adorable Lord (prasādaye + tvām + aham + īśam + īḍyam)
- piteva putrasya sakheva sakhyuḥपितेव पुत्रस्य सखेव सख्युः
- as a father with a son, as a friend with a friend (pitā + iva + putrasya + sakhā + iva + sakhyuḥ)
- priyaḥ priyāyārhasi deva soḍhumप्रियः प्रियायार्हसि देव सोढुं
- as a lover with a beloved, O God, bear with me (priyaḥ + priyāyā + arhasi + deva + soḍhum)
Commentary
Site Commentary
Arjuna doesn’t settle for one relational analogy, he stacks three — father to son, friend to friend, lover to beloved — as though a single comparison wouldn’t carry enough weight for what he’s asking. That redundancy is itself informative: when a request feels urgent enough, one good analogy can start to feel insufficient, so the mind reaches for several, overlapping ones instead of trusting any single frame alone.
Original commentary written for this site · © Amit Singh — original commentary
Concepts
Apply this verse
Lessons
Personal
- When you're asking someone for real patience after you've overstepped, notice if you're stacking multiple justifications instead of trusting one — that's often a sign the request feels urgent to you, not necessarily that you need every argument to land.
Professional
- When requesting leniency from a manager or client after a mistake, one clear, honest framing usually lands better than piling on several overlapping justifications — resist the urge to stack analogies the way urgency tempts you to.
Family & Social
- If you find yourself giving someone close to you three different reasons why they should forgive you, notice that the stacking itself signals how urgent this feels to you — sometimes one honest, direct reason lands better than a redundant pile of them.
Ask yourself
A few ways to take this verse past reading. Ticks and the note stay in this browser.