Sanskrit
असत्यमप्रतिष्ठं ते जगदाहुरनीश्वरम् । अपरस्परसंभूतं किमन्यत्कामहैतुकम् ॥
asatyam apratiṣṭhaṃ te jagad āhur anīśvaram aparasparasaṃbhūtaṃ kim anyat kāmahaitukam
Translation
"The universe is without truth, without basis," they say, "without a God; brought about by mutual union, and caused by lust and nothing else."
Annie Besant · The Bhagavad-Gita, translated by Annie Besant (4th ed., 1922) — Wikisource · Public Domain
Explanation
Here the text puts words in the mouths of the people it is critiquing, and what it produces is a fairly recognizable materialist position: the universe is without truth or foundation, without a God or ruling principle, arising from nothing but chance union and driven by kāma (desire) alone. It reads like polemic against a real rival school — something like the Cārvāka/Lokāyata materialist tradition that Indian philosophy debated for centuries — and, like most premodern doxography of opponents, it’s worth treating as a hostile caricature rather than a neutral summary of what such thinkers actually held. What’s notable is that the text doesn’t bother refuting this cosmology philosophically; it simply asserts that people who hold it turn out badly, which is itself a telling move. The demonic worldview, stated in one line: no truth, no order, no God — a cosmos “caused only by desire.” The Gita’s objection is not to disbelief as such but to what it licenses: if desire is the only cause, then acting on desire needs no further justification (BG 16.9).
Study deeper
Word by word
- asatyam apratiṣṭhaṃ teअसत्यं अप्रतिष्ठं ते
- they say the world is without truth, without ground (asatyam + apratiṣṭham + te)
- jagad āhur anīśvaramजगद् आहुः अनीश्वरं
- they declare it without a God (jagat + āhuḥ + an-īśvaram)
- aparasparasaṃbhūtaṃअपरस्परसंभूतं
- arisen from mutual union [without cause] (aparaspara-saṃbhūtam)
- kim anyat kāmahaitukamकिं अन्यत् कामहैतुकं
- what else? — caused only by desire (kim + anyat + kāma-haitukam)
Commentary
Site Commentary
Notice the asymmetry in method, not just content: the divine qualities in verses 1–3 are simply listed in the third person, but here the materialist position is put directly into quotation, in something resembling the opponent’s own words. Even a hostile caricature is still granted the rhetorical form of a first-person claim — a method the text never extends to its own preferred virtues, which are described but never voiced.
Original commentary written for this site · © Amit Singh — original commentary
Concepts
Apply this verse
Lessons
Personal
- When you disagree strongly with a position, try stating it in something close to its own words before you argue against it — even an unflattering version of that discipline forces you to engage with what's actually being claimed, rather than only your own summary of it.
Professional
- Before shooting down a proposal you disagree with in a meeting, restate it in the proposer's own terms first, even briefly — this verse's move of quoting the opposing view, however unflatteringly, is a discipline worth borrowing before you argue against a position rather than a simplified version of it.
Family & Social
- In an argument with someone close to you, try repeating their position back in something close to their own words before you respond to it — even done imperfectly, that step keeps you arguing with what they actually said instead of a flattened version you find easier to counter.
Ask yourself
A few ways to take this verse past reading. Ticks and the note stay in this browser.