Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 10, Verse 18: Krishna to Arjuna — Vibhūti-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Arjuna asks Kṛṣṇa to elaborate again — at greater length — on his yoga (yogaiśvarya, the particular power of lordship) and his vibhūti (the full range of objects fit for meditation). The epithet Janārdana is parsed by Śaṅkara as 'he who drives wicked beings to ruin or who is implored by all people for abhyudaya and niḥśreyas.' Arjuna's stated reason — that he finds no satiation (tṛpti) while drinking these words as amṛta flowing from Kṛṣṇa's mouth — signals that even the jñāna-prepared mind is drawn ever deeper into the inexhaustible object.

  divergence: Śaṅkara's commentary on 10.18 directly parsed: yogaiśvaryaśaktiviśeṣam, vibhūtiṃ ca vistaraṃ dhyeyapadārthānām; amṛtam = tvanmukhanihsṛtavākya.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Arjuna refers back to the summary given at 10.8 — 'I am the origin of all; from me all proceeds' — and asks Kṛṣṇa to unfold that sṛṣṭṛtva (creatorship), yoga, vibhūti, and niyamana (governance) in detail. Rāmānuja hears in the request an acknowledgement that Bhagavān already knows Arjuna's insatiable love: 'mama atṛptiḥ tvayā eva viditā' — my thirst is known to you alone. The amṛta here is the nectar of Bhagavān's own mahātmya, and to drink it in ever-expanding measure is itself the goal of upāsanā.

  divergence: Rāmānuja quotes BG 10.8 verbatim and uses the phrase 'tvānmāhātmyāmṛtaṃ śṛṇvataḥ' with the explicit gloss that Bhagavān already knows Arjuna's unsatisfied longing.

• Madhvadvaita

  Madhva's commentary fixes attention on the name Janārdana: 'na jāyate ardayati ca saṃsāram iti janārdanaḥ' — he who is unborn yet drives the cycle of existence into affliction for those bound within it. The Bābhravya-śākhā is cited: 'sa bhūtaḥ sa janārdanaḥ' and 'sa hyāsīt sa nāsīt so ardayat.' Arjuna's request for extended elaboration thus implicitly acknowledges Hari as the independent sovereign whose nature can never be exhausted and whose vibhūti is not a list of attributes but an ontological surplus eternally distinct from any finite knower.

  divergence: Madhva's entire comment on this verse is devoted to the etymology of Janārdana via the Bābhravya-śākhā citation; the request for elaboration is accepted without separate gloss.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Vallabha reads 10.17–18 as a single question-complex: how should I, a yogin, contemplate you in those bhāvas that admit both your accessible and transcendent dimensions? The request for 'vistaraṇa' is not mere curiosity but a disciple's acknowledgement that he has been constituted as a meditator (yogī vidhīye) by Kṛṣṇa's own grace, and the question about vibhūti and yoga is therefore the full unfolding of that initiation. Even prior disclosure was saṃkṣepa (condensed); the devotee's insatiability is the prasāda-sign that Kṛṣṇa's līlā is self-manifesting through the asking.

  divergence: Vallabha combines 10.17–18 under a single commentary block: 'ahaṃ tvayā yogī vidhīye' and identifies the request as the full 'samastaprśnasphoraṇa' resolving both queries at once.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Śrīdhara reads this verse as the key to the devotional use of vibhūti-contemplation: even for a mind turned outward, by meditating on Kṛṣṇa's vibhūti wherever the eye rests, that wandering itself becomes tac-cintā (thought of him). The yoga of Kṛṣṇa here is sarvajñatva and sarvaśaktitva (omniscience and omnipotence) as meditatable qualities; vibhūti is their enumerable expression in the world. The word amṛta governs tṛpti: Kṛṣṇa's speech is inherently nectarous, and the absence of satiation is not a lack but the nature of the nectar itself.

  divergence: Śrīdhara: 'bahirmukhepī citte tatra tatra vibhūtibhedena tvaccintaiva yathā bhavet' and 'tvadavākyamamṛtarūpaṃ śṛṇvato mama tṛptiralambbuddhirnāsti.'

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusūdana explicitly notes that yoga (as aiśvaryātiśaya, surpassing lordship) and vibhūti (as dhyānālambana, supports for meditation) were already given in brief in the seventh and ninth chapters; the request is for their renewed elaboration. He parses Janārdana as 'implored by all beings for abhyudaya and niḥśreyas' — Arjuna's request is therefore not exceptional but the universal act of seeking Bhagavān. The rhetorical figure at the end is identified as an apahnutyatiśayokti-rūpaka-saṃkara: the word 'tadvākya' is omitted, so the amṛta metaphor becomes a full rūpaka — his speech IS the nectar, not merely like it — carrying mādhurya that exceeds the simile.

  divergence: Madhusūdana: 'saṃkṣepeṇa saptame navame ca uktamapi bhūyaḥ punaḥ kathaya'; identifies the figure as apahnutyatiśayokti-rūpakasaṃkara explicitly.