Cluster 0152
BG-4.11
Ovi 4.66
Original (Marathi): एऱ्हवीं तरी पाहीं । जे जैसे माझ्या ठायीं । भजती तयां मीही । तैसाचि भजें ॥६६॥ Voice: krishna-to-arjuna
Voice-anchor: First-person possessives माझ्या ठायीं / मीही / भजें (at-my-place / I-also / I-worship) unambiguously anchor continued Kṛṣṇa-of-the-cluster speaking of his own reciprocal-bhajana. The opening एऱ्हवीं तरी पाहीं (otherwise / for-that-matter — see-now) is a sustained-Kṛṣṇa-speech transition-marker — note that cluster 0151 also opened with एऱ्हवीं (cluster 0151 ovi 4.60). The same opening-phrase across back-to-back ślokas signals the continued Kṛṣṇa-discourse and rules-out a voice-shift.
Word-by-word gloss
| Marathi | Meaning |
|---|---|
| एऱ्हवीं तरी | otherwise / for-that-matter |
| पाहीं | see / behold |
| जे | (those) who |
| जैसे | in-such-a-way / in-whatever-manner |
| माझ्या ठायीं | at-my-place / in-me |
| भजती | [they] worship / serve / approach |
| तयां | to-them |
| मीही | I-also |
| तैसाचि | in-just-that-same-way |
| भजें | I worship / I serve / I-meet-them |
Literal translation
English: Otherwise, see — those who in-whatever-manner worship me at my place, I too worship them in just-that-same-way.
मराठी (आधुनिक): आणि बघ — जे ज्या प्रकाराने माझ्याजवळ भक्ति करतात, मीही त्यांच्याशी तसाच भज़तो (त्याच भावाने त्यांना सामोरा जातो).
Metaphor-unfold
No extended metaphor in this ovi.
Nāth-yogic layer
No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi.
Cross-references
- Internal: developed-further from 4.65 (cluster 0151's closing —
मी तेचि ते जाहले — एथ संशयो कायसा?). The WHO-clause of BG-4.10 (the many who have already become me) hands off to the HOW-clause of BG-4.11 (I receive each as they approach). Reciprocity at the path-level (4.66) makes coherent the identification at the destination-level (4.65). - Tukaram parallel: Tukaram 2891 (reciprocal bhakta-Deva family-relation) — thematic-resonance. Radical 4-fold reciprocity: bhakta-as-daughter-in-law / Deva-caretaker; mutual jīva-body-binding; Deva-as-mother / bhakta-as-progenitor-(father)-of-Deva. The Jñāneśvar
तयां मीही तैसाचि भजेंis the most-compact 4.11-anchored statement of which Tukaram 2891 is the vārkarī-householder-relation operationalization. - Source citation:
- Bhagavad Gītā 4.11 — direct-paraphrase. Sanskrit
ये यथा मां प्रपद्यन्ते तांस्तथैव भजाम्यहम्⇒ Marathiजे जैसे ... तयां मीही तैसाचि भजें. Strict semantic preservation including the radical reciprocal-bhajana (Kṛṣṇa himself bhajans his bhaktas). - Bhagavad Gītā 9.29 — echo.
ये भजन्ति तु मां भक्त्या मयि ते तेषु चाप्यहम्— chapter-9 deepening of the chapter-4 reciprocity-claim. BG-4.11 names the reciprocal-correspondence (as-you-approach-so-I-meet); BG-9.29 names the reciprocal-indwelling (you-in-me-I-in-you).
Modern application
- When a parent realizes that each child requires a different kind of love — not because the love-they-have is variable but because the form each child brings asks for a different response. The strict-rule-loving child meets a parent in the form-of-clear-rules; the playful child meets the same parent in the form-of-playfulness; the grief-stricken child in the form-of-presence. The ovi names the structural principle: the Lord meets each in the form they bring. Not many lords; one Lord meeting many forms.
- When a long-time teacher of meditation or contemplation realizes that the teaching must be re-shaped for each student — not as compromise of the doctrine, but as fidelity to BG-4.11. The doctrine is one; the meeting is many. Conversely, the student who recognizes that their teacher-met-them in the form they brought to the teaching is recognizing 4.66 in the lived-pattern of their own apprenticeship.
- When you sit in inter-religious dialogue or a multi-traditional friendship and notice that the same underlying current is meeting each interlocutor in the vocabulary they brought (the Christian's grace, the Buddhist's suchness, the Sufi's Beloved, the Advaitin's self). The ovi's reading is not the relativist all paths are equal; it is the structural-claim that the one-current meets each in the form-of-the-approach. This is the inclusivism of the verse — strong, not weak.
Sādhanā
Today, identify one relationship in your life where you have been giving the love you have rather than the love the other has asked for. Even three minutes of what form has this person been bringing me, and have I been meeting them in that form? The ovi's discipline is: meet each in the form-they-approach. This is harder than offering-your-form. Notice the resistance to that harder discipline; that resistance is itself the ovi's first teaching.
Arc
4.66 stated the reciprocal-doctrine for those-who-approach. 4.67 generalizes the who: the whole human race is by-its-very-nature bhajana-natured toward me alone.
Ovi 4.67
Original (Marathi): देखैं मनुष्यजात सकळ । हें स्वभावता भजनशीळ । जाहलें असे केवळ । माझ्याचि ठायीं ॥६७॥ Voice: krishna-to-arjuna
Voice-anchor: Continuation. The opening देखैं (see / behold) is a generic Marathi imperative — NOT a voice-shift anchor (cluster 0075's discipline-lesson: देखैं-style imperatives appear freely inside sustained Kṛṣṇa-discourse). The first-person possessive माझ्याचि ठायीं (at-my-place-exclusively) at the close confirms continued Kṛṣṇa-voice. The Sanskrit BG-4.11's मम वर्त्म ... मनुष्याः पार्थ is the source-text being rendered — and the Sanskrit's पार्थ vocative confirms Arjuna remains the addressee.
Word-by-word gloss
| Marathi | Meaning |
|---|---|
| देखैं | see / behold (generic narrative-imperative) |
| मनुष्यजात | the-human-race / humankind |
| सकळ | all / the-whole |
| हें | this |
| स्वभावता | by-own-nature / inherently |
| भजनशीळ | of-the-character-of-bhajana / bhajana-natured |
| जाहलें असे | has-become / is |
| केवळ | only / exclusively |
| माझ्याचि ठायीं | at-my-place-alone / in-me-exclusively |
Literal translation
English: See — the whole human race has become, by-its-very-nature, of-the-character-of-bhajana — exclusively, at my place alone.
मराठी (आधुनिक): बघ — संपूर्ण मनुष्यजात स्वभावतःच भजनशील आहे — आणि ती केवळ माझ्या ठिकाणीच भजनशील आहे.
Metaphor-unfold
No extended metaphor in this ovi.
Nāth-yogic layer
No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi.
Cross-references
- Internal: None directly. (The 4.67 universal-bhajana-claim is a doctrinal first-statement in adhyāya 4; later corpus-occurrences in chapter-7's bhakti-typology will pick this up but are forward, not backward.)
- Tukaram parallel: Tukaram 2745 (Paṇḍharī-hāṭa bhakti-market) — thematic-resonance. the bhakti-market of Paṇḍharī is near, take freely no one prevents, but it goes vain if not taken. The 4.67 universal-bhajana-anthropology is the doctrinal-warrant of which Tukaram 2745's universal-access-claim is the village-marketplace operationalization.
- Source citation:
- Bhagavad Gītā 4.11 — direct-paraphrase. Sanskrit
मम वर्त्मानुवर्तन्ते मनुष्याः पार्थ सर्वशः⇒ Marathiमनुष्यजात सकळ ... स्वभावता भजनशीळ ... माझ्याचि ठायीं. Theसर्वशः(all-of-them / in-every-way) rendered asसकळ ... केवळwith the interpretive intensifierस्वभावता(by-own-nature). - Bhagavad Gītā 7.16 — echo. The four-fold typology of bhaktas (
चतुर्विधा भजन्ते मां जनाः) is the chapter-7 specification of the chapter-4 universal-bhajana-claim opened here.
Modern application
- When you observe that the people in your life who insist they have no religion / no spirituality / no metaphysics still display a bhajana-shaped shape to their life — they have something (a cause, an art, a child, a craft, a relationship) at the exclusive center, and they organize their attention around that something the way the religious organize attention around the divine. The ovi reads this universally: the bhajana-shape is constitutive of being-human; the named-object varies, but the shape is the same.
- When you watch a scientist describe their work with the language of wonder and devotion and long-faithful-fidelity to the truth-that-is-emerging-from-the-data, and recognize the structure as bhajana-shaped — even though no temple, no name, no rite. The ovi's claim is that this is not metaphor; it is the same bhajana-natured-ness, finding its object in the form-the-scientist-has-brought.
- When you witness someone in deep despair (the kind that resists comfort) and notice that what they have lost is not a belief but the bhajana-direction — they no longer have anything to which their attention naturally inclines. The ovi's diagnosis suggests this is a deeper kind of suffering than loss-of-faith — it is loss-of-the-natural-bhajana-shape itself. And the corresponding healing is not the imposition of a new object but the re-finding of the natural inclination.
Sādhanā
Today, name one thing in your life around which your attention organizes itself without effort. Not what you should be devoted to; what you are devoted to, structurally. Then ask: if 4.67 is right and this is bhajana-natured shape applied to a stand-in object, then under this stand-in is the direction toward the One. This is not a call to swap-the-object; it is a call to recognize the shape of your attention as already-bhajana-natured. Three minutes is enough to feel the recognition land.
Arc
4.67 stated the universal-bhajana-anthropology. 4.68 now opens the diagnostic-question: if humans are universally bhajana-natured toward the One, why does the empirical world contain so many gods, so many sects, so many rival devotions? The answer: jñāna-deficit and buddhi-bheda.
Ovi 4.68
Original (Marathi): परी ज्ञानेंवीण नाशिले । जे बुद्धिभेदासी आले । तेणेंचि त्या कल्पिलें । अनेकत्व ॥६८॥ Voice: krishna-to-arjuna
Voice-anchor: Continuation. The परी (but) is a continuation-conjunction inside sustained Kṛṣṇa-discourse — opening the diagnostic-clause that completes the 4.67 universal-bhajana-claim. No first-person markers in this ovi, but no voice-shift anchor either; the cluster's Kṛṣṇa-voice continues by default of no register-break, no framing-phrase, no vocative-shift.
Word-by-word gloss
| Marathi | Meaning |
|---|---|
| परी | but |
| ज्ञानेंवीण | without-jñāna / bereft-of-knowledge |
| नाशिले | ruined / destroyed |
| जे | (those) who |
| बुद्धिभेदासी आले | came-to buddhi-bheda (mind-division) |
| तेणेंचि | by-that-very-thing / because-of-that |
| त्या | they |
| कल्पिलें | imagined / fabricated / conceptualized |
| अनेकत्व | multiplicity / many-ness |
Literal translation
English: But — those who, bereft-of-jñāna, are ruined; those who came-into buddhi-bheda — by-that-very-deficit they imagined multiplicity.
मराठी (आधुनिक): परंतु — ज्ञानाशिवाय जे नष्ट झाले, जे बुद्धिभेदापर्यंत आले — त्यांनीच त्या (बुद्धिभेदा)मुळे अनेकत्वाची कल्पना केली.
Metaphor-unfold
No extended metaphor in this ovi.
Nāth-yogic layer
No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi.
Cross-references
- Internal: foreshadows 4.69 — 4.68 names the mechanism (jñāna-deficit → buddhi-bheda → anekatva-projection); 4.69 names the consequence (those-who-imagine-multiplicity-in-the-non-different give-names-to-the-nameless).
- Tukaram parallel: Tukaram 2374 (anti-folk-deity polemic) — thematic-resonance. Names ~15 lower-deities rejected for exclusive bhakti to Viṭhṭhal. Where Jñāneśvar 4.68 diagnoses the multiplicity-projection as jñāna-deficit, Tukaram 2374 practices the corrective by refusing the projected-multiplicity. Same diagnosis, two genre-renderings.
- Source citation:
- Bhagavad Gītā 7.20-23 — echo.
कामैस्तैस्तैर्हृतज्ञानाः प्रपद्यन्तेऽन्यदेवताः ... कामान्मया विहितान्हि तान्— chapter-7 systematic-treatment of the same diagnosis. The buddhi-bheda mechanism (4.68) is the chapter-7कामैस्तैस्तैर्हृतज्ञानाः— desire-ruined-jñāna leads to anya-devatā-projection. - Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.6 — echo.
य इदं विदुषे ब्रह्म ज्ञास्यथेति मन्यते स न वेद— the projection-of-multiplicity-onto-the-one is itself the jñāna-deficit. Jñāneśvar'sबुद्धिभेदासी आलेis the Marathi-village rendering.
Modern application
- When you find yourself in inter-religious or inter-sectarian dispute — not the productive kind that clarifies real-differences, but the heated kind where your-tradition's-vocabulary feels under-attack by another-tradition's-vocabulary, and the temperature of the discussion has risen far above what the propositional-content alone would warrant — the ovi diagnoses: this is buddhi-bheda operating in you. The temperature comes from imagining-multiplicity where the universal-bhajana-direction is one.
- When you watch a thoughtful person whose practice has settled into a non-anxious relationship-to-other-traditions — they do not need to convert anyone; they do not need to relativize; they are simply not in buddhi-bheda. They see what is being approached through each tradition's vocabulary and recognize the same direction. The ovi calls this not-being-ruined-by-jñāna-deficit.
- When you notice in yourself the moment a categorical-judgment on another's practice rises — that is not real meditation, that is not real prayer, that is not real bhakti — and recognize the categorical-judgment itself as the symptom of buddhi-bheda. The other person's form is meeting the same direction your form meets; the categorical-judgment is the imagined-multiplicity 4.68 describes.
Sādhanā
Today, identify one religious / spiritual / philosophical tradition or community toward which you carry a settled negative-judgment. Ask: what bhajana-direction is being approached through that tradition's form? Not — is their form equivalent to mine? (that is the wrong question per the ovi). Rather — what is the direction-of-approach inside that form? Three minutes of this. The buddhi-bheda will not dissolve in three minutes, but the direction of practice the ovi opens will become visible.
Arc
4.68 named the mechanism (jñāna-deficit → buddhi-bheda → anekatva). 4.69 will name the consequence at the level of speech: the imagined-multiplicity gets named, and the nameless gets labeled with goddess-god vocabulary.
Ovi 4.69
Original (Marathi): म्हणौनि अभेदीं भेदु देखती । यया अनाम्या नामें ठेविती । देवी देवो म्हणती । अचर्चातें ॥६९॥ Voice: krishna-to-arjuna
Voice-anchor: Continuation. The opening म्हणौनि (therefore / for-that-reason) is a continuation-conjunction inside sustained Kṛṣṇa-discourse, naming the consequence of 4.68's mechanism. No voice-shift.
Word-by-word gloss
| Marathi | Meaning |
|---|---|
| म्हणौनि | therefore / for-that-reason |
| अभेदीं | in-the-non-different |
| भेदु | difference |
| देखती | they see |
| यया | to-this |
| अनाम्या | nameless-one |
| नामें ठेविती | they-deposit names |
| देवी देवो म्हणती | they-say goddess [variously] god |
| अचर्चातें | to-the-non-discussable / to-the-unutterable |
Literal translation
English: Therefore — in the non-different they see difference; on this nameless-one they deposit names; they say goddess, god to the non-discussable.
मराठी (आधुनिक): म्हणूनच — अभेदामध्ये ते भेद पाहतात; ज्याला नाव नाही त्याच्यावर नावे लावतात; ज्याची चर्चाही करता येत नाही त्यालाच देवी-देव म्हणतात.
Metaphor-unfold
No extended metaphor in this ovi. (The four parallel-clauses are conceptual-not-imagistic.)
Nāth-yogic layer
No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi.
Cross-references
- Internal: foreshadows 4.70 — the naming-the-nameless consequence of 4.69 develops into the ranking-the-non-rankable consequence of 4.70 (low-and-high-divisions in what is sarvatra-sadā-sama).
- Tukaram parallel: Tukaram 2925 (formless-Viṭṭhal) — thematic-resonance. no-rūpa-no-nāma-no-place-to-hold; wherever-you-go Viṭṭhal-māyabahīṇa; neither-nirguṇa-nor-saguṇa. Where Jñāneśvar 4.69 diagnoses the affixing of names to the nameless as buddhi-bheda's consequence, Tukaram 2925 names the bhakti-side-positive: the formless-Viṭṭhal is found by bhāva, not by the naming-operation.
- Source citation:
- Kena Upaniṣad 1.3-1.4 — echo.
यद्वाचानभ्युदितं येन वागभ्युद्यते — तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते(that which speech does-not-utter, by which speech is uttered — know that as brahman, not this which they here-worship). The foundational Upaniṣadic warning that what is publicly worshipped as brahman is not brahman. Jñāneśvar'sअचर्चातें ... देवी देवो म्हणतीis the Marathi compressed form.
Modern application
- When you notice that the vocabulary you use for the divine has become a substitute for the encounter — you say the Lord, the Christ, the Buddha-nature, the Self with increasing fluency and decreasing-actual-encounter. The ovi diagnoses: the name has begun to be confused with the thing-named. The name is a pointer; the pointed-to is acharchā. Worth noticing without shame; this is a near-universal trap of long-religious-practice.
- When you watch an academic theological discussion run for hours on the precise-naming-of-the-divine and recognize that no act of naming has actually happened with respect to the divine itself — only the names are interacting with each other. The ovi's
अचर्चातें ... म्हणती(they-say-[the-name]-to-the-non-discussable) catches this register precisely. The discussion is real; the charchā about its object is not happening, because the object is acharchā. - When you fall into a private religious defensiveness — my-tradition's-name-for-God is the right one — and recognize the absurdity-of-the-defensiveness given that no name is the right one because no name reaches the named. The ovi does not require relativism (the universal-bhajana-direction is the same); it requires renunciation of the claim that one's name reaches it. Sharper than relativism; more humble.
Sādhanā
For two minutes, sit with one Name you typically use for the divine (राम, कृष्ण, Lord, Self, God, whatever). Use it inwardly several times. Then ask: what is the relation of this name to what-the-name-points-to? Not — is the name accurate? — but — what work is the name doing? The ovi's claim is that the work is pointing, not containing. The name is a finger, not the moon. Two minutes of practicing the finger-and-moon distinction is the ovi's operational form.
Arc
4.69 named the speech-consequence (names-deposited-on-the-nameless). 4.70 will name the valuational-consequence — rank-and-status divisions imposed on what is everywhere-always-same.
Ovi 4.70
Original (Marathi): जे सर्वत्र सदा सम । तेथ विभाग अधमोत्तम । मतिवशें संभ्रम । विवंचिती ॥७०॥ Voice: krishna-to-arjuna
Voice-anchor: Continuation. No first-person markers, no vocatives, no framing-phrase shift. The cluster's Kṛṣṇa-voice continues by default — the diagnostic-clause that closes the 4.68-70 interpretive-bridge.
Word-by-word gloss
| Marathi | Meaning |
|---|---|
| जे | (that) which |
| सर्वत्र | everywhere |
| सदा | always |
| सम | same / equal |
| तेथ | there / in-that |
| विभाग | division / partition |
| अधमोत्तम | low-and-high / inferior-and-superior |
| मतिवशें | by-the-mind's-overpowering / under-delusion |
| संभ्रम | confusion / delusion |
| विवंचिती | they-discriminate / they-classify-by-division |
Literal translation
English: In that-which-is-everywhere-always-same, they discriminate divisions-of-low-and-high — by-the-mind's-overpowering, in delusion.
मराठी (आधुनिक): जे सर्वत्र, सदैव, समान आहे — त्यामध्येच ते कमी-अधिक, अधम-उत्तम असे विभाग करतात — मनाच्या प्रभावाखाली येऊन संभ्रमाने.
Metaphor-unfold
No extended metaphor in this ovi. (The सर्वत्र सदा सम is doctrinal-vocabulary, not imagistic.)
Nāth-yogic layer
No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi.
Cross-references
- Internal: foreshadows 4.71 (cluster 0153's BG-4.12 opening,
काङ्क्षन्तः कर्मणां सिद्धिं यजन्त इह देवताः). The general sambhrama-as-ranking-diagnosis hands off to the specific-sub-population-description of those-who-desire-results-of-action. - Tukaram parallel: Tukaram 2810 (12-verse saints-list) — thematic-resonance.
उंच-नीच-नेणे-भगवंत(the Bhagavanta does-not-know-high-or-low) — vārkarī-bhakti-historical counterpoint to 4.70's metaphysical-claim. The same Bhagavanta met all of them across all castes; ranking is the sambhrama. - Source citation:
- Bhagavad Gītā 13.27 — echo.
समं सर्वेषु भूतेषु तिष्ठन्तं परमेश्वरम् — विनश्यत्स्वविनश्यन्तं यः पश्यति स पश्यति(one who sees the same parameśvara abiding in all beings sees rightly). Direct Sanskrit source —समं सर्वेषुis the precise Sanskrit of which 4.70'sसर्वत्र सदा समis the Marathi rendering. Chapter-4 / chapter-13 doctrinal-bridge identified.
Modern application
- When you notice that ranking-traditions (Buddhism is higher than Hinduism; Advaita is higher than dvaita; my-school is higher than another-school) is itself the sambhrama 4.70 describes. The ovi does not deny that forms differ — it denies that the underlying divine divides into rankable-tiers. The ranking is a function of mati (mind's classifying-tendency), not of tattva (the reality being classified).
- When you observe in yourself the impulse to rank your own past spiritual experiences (that one was deeper, this one was shallower; that one was real, this was just felt-emotion). The ovi's diagnosis suggests this ranking-impulse is itself the sambhrama — the underlying current that touched each experience was sarvatra-sadā-sama. The ranking is the mati-vasha-vivekana; the experience-itself was not ranked.
- When you watch a discussion among teachers / practitioners that has become a status-ranking exercise (who is higher-realized, who is more-advanced, whose tradition is more-authentic) and recognize the entire frame as 4.70's
मतिवशें संभ्रम विवंचिती. The status-ranking exercise is itself the symptom-of-mati-vasha; the realization being discussed, if real, would have already-dissolved the ranking-frame.
Sādhanā
Today, identify one place in your life where you actively rank: spiritual-experiences, teachers, traditions, practices, or even yourself-on-different-days. For three minutes, hold the question: what would it mean if the underlying-current was sarvatra-sadā-sama, and the ranking was an artifact of my mati's classifying-function? Not an attempt to disprove the ranking; an attempt to suspend it. The suspension is the ovi's operational form.
Arc
The cluster closes with the general sambhrama-diagnosis. Cluster 0153 (BG-4.12) will operationalize this into a specific sub-population: those who desire-quick-results-of-action go to the lower-deities, because the karma-born siddhi happens quickly in the human-world. The diagnostic-general (4.68-70) hands off to the typological-specific (4.71+).
Cluster summary
Core teaching. As they approach me, so I receive them — the reciprocity-doctrine of BG-4.11. The whole human race is by-its-very-nature constituted by bhajana toward me alone. But those bereft of jñāna who fall into buddhi-bheda imagine multiplicity in the non-different, deposit names on the nameless, talk of goddess-and-god to the non-discussable, and discriminate high-and-low divisions in what is always-everywhere-same.
Theme tags: BG-4.11; ye-yathā-mām-prapadyante; reciprocity-of-bhajana; universal-bhajana-anthropology; svabhāvataḥ-bhajanaśīla; buddhi-bheda; naming-the-nameless; ranking-the-non-rankable; acharchā; sarvatra-sadā-sama; mati-vasha-sambhrama; all-paths-lead-to-me.
Contains extended metaphor: No. The cluster's work is doctrinal-bridging, not imagistic. The closest-to-imagistic move is अचर्चातें (the-non-discussable) at 4.69 as a single-word concept-term; not an unfolded image.
Chapter arc position. The reciprocity-and-diagnosis cluster of the BG-4.5-15 avatāra-doctrine block. Cluster 0151 (BG-4.10) closed the WHO-clause (the many who have already become me). Cluster 0152 (BG-4.11) opens the HOW-clause in TWO parts: (i) the reciprocity-side — I receive each as they approach (4.66-67); (ii) the diagnostic-side — but why does the universal-bhajana manifest as apparent-multiplicity? Because of buddhi-bheda (4.68-70). The cluster is structurally bifold: a 2-ovi positive-statement followed by a 3-ovi interpretive-bridge that anticipates the BG-4.12+ examination of those-who-go-to-other-deities.
Connects to next śloka. BG-4.12 (cluster 0153) — काङ्क्षन्तः कर्मणां सिद्धिं यजन्त इह देवताः । क्षिप्रं हि मानुषे लोके सिद्धिर्भवति कर्मजा — will operationalize 4.68-70's general-sambhrama-diagnosis into a specific sub-population: those whose desire-for-quick-results sends them to the lower-deities. The 4.70 general sambhrama-as-ranking hands off to the 4.71-onward specific sub-population description. The chapter is moving from universal-statement (BG-4.11) to typological-specification (BG-4.12-15).