Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 10, Verse 17: Krishna to Arjuna — Vibhūti-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Arjuna asks: by what cognitive act (vidyā) can I, through continuous meditation (sadā paricintayan), come to know you, O Yogin? In which specific objects (bhāveṣu) are you to be contemplated (cintya) by me? Śaṅkara reads this as a request for the objects of dhyāna (meditation-supports), not as a plea for devotional multiplicity — the yogi seeks to dissolve the catalogue of vibhūtis into the single knowing act by which Brahman is recognized in all manifestation.

  divergence: Śaṅkara glosses 'vidyām' as 'vijānīyām' — the act of knowing, not a body of doctrine — and 'bhāveṣu' as 'vastuṣu,' concrete objects. The question is epistemological: by what contemplative path does mediated vibhūti-knowledge yield unmediated recognition?

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Arjuna identifies himself as a yogin established in bhakti-yoga (bhaktiyoganiṣṭha) and declares his resolve toward continuous contemplation (sadā paricintayan). He asks how he, approaching through bhakti alone, can know Bhagavān — who is the seat of all auspicious qualities (kalyāṇaguṇagaṇa) in their fullness — and in which unmapped objects (anukteṣu bhāveṣu) Bhagavān is to be understood as the inner controller (niyantṛ). The question extends the earlier list: Arjuna wants the unnarrated vibhūtis, not merely the ones already given.

  divergence: Rāmānuja specifies 'pūrvoktabuddhijñānādibhāvyatiriktteṣu anukteṣu' — objects beyond what was already enumerated — and links 'niyantṛtva' (lordship as inner rule) as the mode of presence Arjuna seeks to recognize.

• Madhvadvaita

  Arjuna's question stands on its own in the Madhva tradition: how can I, the eternally dependent jīva, come to know Hari in his fullness through meditation, and in which real objects — where his independent sovereignty (svātantrya) is visibly operative — should I fix my contemplation? The jīva's knowing is always received, never self-generated; the question is thus a petition for Hari's self-disclosure.

  divergence: No Madhva bhāṣya is present for this verse. Rendering is constructed from Madhva's documented doctrinal commitments: jīva-paratantrya, Hari-svātantrya, and the principle that vibhūti-lists function as aids to dependent bhakti.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Vallabha reads Arjuna's question as a request for initiation into the yogin's own yoga — not just his vibhūtis. If Kṛṣṇa is making Arjuna a yogin (tvayyā yogī vidhīyate), then Arjuna legitimately asks: how do I know your yoga itself, and in which objects of both kinds (ubhayavidheṣu bhāveṣu — sentient and insentient) am I to contemplate you? The subsequent request 'vistareṇa' (10.18) reveals this is only the opening of a larger petition; Vallabha treats the verse as a hinge asking for expansion of what was given only in summary.

  divergence: Vallabha notes 'yogin iti pāṭhe' — in the reading where Kṛṣṇa is addressed as Yogin — the question about Kṛṣṇa's own yoga arises. He explicitly links 10.17 to 10.18 as a single sustained inquiry, and glosses 'ubhayavidheṣu bhāveṣu' as covering both categories of existence.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Śrīdhara reads the verse as Arjuna demonstrating the purpose of Kṛṣṇa's narration by making a double request: by which vibhūti-distinctions (vibhūtibhedaiḥ) can I continuously contemplate you and thereby come to know you, and — even knowing you are to be contemplated through those vibhūtis — in which specific objects (padārtheṣu) should I direct that contemplation? The two questions are distinct: the first asks for the instrument of knowledge, the second for the field of application.

  divergence: Śrīdhara explicitly marks 'dvābhyām' — this verse together with 10.18 forms a two-verse petition — and separates 'vibhūtibhedena cintyo' (contemplated via vibhūti-divisions) from 'keṣu keṣu padārtheṣu cintanīya' (the objects in which to contemplate). No HTML artifacts detected in this entry.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusūdana synthesizes the epistemological and devotional registers: Arjuna, as a 'stout-minded one' (atisthūlamati), acknowledges that Kṛṣṇa — bearer of unsurpassed sovereign power (niratiśayaiśvaryādiśakti) — is unknowable even to the devas; how then can Arjuna know him through continuous meditation alone? The question thus moves on two levels simultaneously: the jñāna-level (what is the cognitive act by which Brahman is apprehended?) and the bhakti-level (in which vibhūti-bearing objects — sentient and insentient (cetanācetanātmaka) — should I contemplate you, O Bhagavān?).

  divergence: Madhusūdana glosses 'atisthūlamati' as Arjuna's self-characterization of epistemic limitation, reads 'sadā paricintayan' as 'sarvadā dhyāyan,' and specifies 'cetanācetanātmakṣu vastuṣu tvadivibhūtibhūteṣu' as the full scope of the field Arjuna is requesting.