Scriptural context
Verse 4.7 sits inside a four-verse explanation, not by itself
Bhagavad Gita 4.7 follows Arjuna’s question about how Krishna could have taught an ancient yoga when Krishna’s apparent birth is later than that of Vivasvan. The chapter first answers through verses 4.5 and 4.6. In 4.6 Krishna speaks of being unborn and imperishable while nevertheless manifesting through his own nature or power. That immediately matters for 4.7: the statement “I bring Myself forth” is not introduced as an isolated claim about social disorder. It continues an explanation of Krishna’s manifestation.
Verse 4.7 then supplies the condition: the decline of dharma and the rise of adharma. Verse 4.8 supplies purposes associated with manifestation — protection of the good, the removal of wrongdoing, and the re-establishment of dharma. Verse 4.9 continues by discussing knowledge of Krishna’s divine birth and action. Reading 4.7 together with 4.6, 4.8 and 4.9 therefore gives the reader a much more stable frame than quoting only the opening words yadā yadā hi dharmasya.
This surrounding sequence also discourages two common shortcuts. First, the verse should not be reduced to a generic promise that every difficulty will be immediately corrected by supernatural intervention. Second, it should not be recruited as proof that one modern party, state, conflict, leader or ideological movement uniquely represents “dharma” while an opponent automatically represents “adharma.” The Gita’s devotional and philosophical claims have long-standing interpretive traditions; SlokaSandra keeps the page inside that scriptural setting instead of converting it into current political advocacy.
The historical 1922 Annie Besant edition on Wikisource independently places the same Devanagari verse after 4.6 and before 4.8, which is useful as an edition-level cross-check of sequence and wording. SlokaSandra does not adopt Besant’s English translation as its own. The page instead uses the ancient Sanskrit text as the anchor and labels its modern explanatory rendering separately.
Learn carefully
Practice the verse in four sense units
- यदा यदा हि धर्मस्यyadā yadā hi dharmasya
- ग्लानिर्भवति भारतglānir bhavati bhārata
- अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्यabhyutthānam adharmasya
- तदाऽऽत्मानं सृजाम्यहम्tadātmānaṃ sṛjāmy aham
Audio status: awaiting verified recitation.No recitation is published on this page. SlokaSandra does not label generated or unreviewed pronunciation as traditional or authoritative. If pronunciation-reviewed audio is added later, the normal experience will remain in-site listening with controls such as play, slow and repeat — not an audio download feature.
Shankaracharya and Ramanuja agree on the verse’s importance but explain manifestation differently
Shankaracharya: the Sanskrit commentary displayed by the IIT Kanpur Gita Supersite glosses the decline of dharma in relation to the order and duties that support welfare and liberation, and the rise of adharma as their contrary emergence. For the concluding phrase, the commentary says Krishna brings forth Himself through māyā. Read with the preceding 4.6, this sits within Shankara’s Advaita explanation of how the unborn Lord can appear without ordinary bondage to birth. That is an attributed Advaita reading, not a neutral definition binding every Hindu tradition.
Ramanuja: the Gita Supersite’s Sanskrit Ramanuja commentary says there is no fixed time restriction on Krishna’s manifestation. It identifies the decline with the weakening of duties taught by the Veda within the ordered structure of social and life stages, and says that when the opposite — adharma — rises, Krishna manifests Himself by His own will in the manner explained previously. Read with Ramanuja’s 4.6, this is a Viśiṣṭādvaita account that emphasizes Krishna’s own nature and volition rather than treating manifestation as ordinary material birth.
Those readings overlap in recognizing a decline of dharma, an increase of adharma and divine manifestation, but they do not collapse into the same metaphysics. A short reference page should preserve that difference instead of blending the traditions into a synthetic commentary that none of them actually wrote.
Madhvacharya: the IIT Kanpur Gita Supersite explicitly states, “Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.” SlokaSandra therefore does not manufacture a Madhva-specific explanation for 4.7 merely to make the page look symmetrical with Bhagavad Gita 18.66. Madhva does comment on 4.8, but that is a different verse and should not be relabelled as “Madhva on 4.7.”