येऽप्यन्यदेवता भक्ता यजन्ते श्रद्धयाऽन्विताः।तेऽपि मामेव कौन्तेय यजन्त्यविधिपूर्वकम्॥
ye ’pyanya-devatā-bhaktā yajante śraddhayānvitāḥte ’pi mām eva kaunteya yajantyavidhi-pūrvakam
Word by word
The verse says
Even those who are devoted to other gods, and sacrifice to them with faith, are in fact sacrificing to me, Arjuna — though not by the proper rule.
In plain words
Both halves in one sentence again.
The generous half: it reaches him anyway. Their faith is real and it is not wasted.
The other half: avidhi-pūrvakam, not by the rule. He has just told them they are doing it wrong.
Where you've felt this · in community
In a small town a letter addressed to the yellow house near the school will be delivered. The address breaks every rule the post office has, and there is no such entry in any register. The postman reads it, knows exactly which house is meant, and it arrives that morning.
Going deeper
Generosity and condescension in a single sentence is a pattern this book repeats, and it is more honest to name it than to pick the half you prefer.
The reach is genuine. Worship offered elsewhere in good faith arrives, and nothing is said about it being rejected or wasted. That was not a small thing to say in a world of competing cults.
The correction is genuine too. Not by the rule is a judgement, and it is made from a position of assumed authority.
Both have been used. The inclusive half has supported centuries of Indian religious tolerance, and the correcting half has supported the claim that other people's worship is a lesser version of one's own. The verse contains both, and a reader is better served knowing that than being handed only the comfortable half.