BG 11.1 — Viśvarūpa-Darśana-Yoga

Bhagavad Gītā 11.1Chapter 11 · Viśvarūpa-Darśana-Yoga · Arjuna → Krishna · anuṣṭubh

मद्अनुग्रहाय परमं गुह्यमध्यात्मसंज्ञितम् ।

यत् त्वयोक्तं वचस् तेन मोहो ऽयं विगतो मम ॥

mad-anugrahāya paramaṃ guhyam adhyātma-saṃjñitam

yat tvayoktaṃ vacas tena moho 'yaṃ vigato mama

spokensingle-voice recital; rendered via IndicF5 conditioned on a Sanskrit reference clip

meaning

The supreme secret you spoke to me out of grace, the teaching called knowledge of the self, has swept this delusion of mine away.

Bhāṣyakāra purports

Śaṅkaraadvaita
The word you spoke for my benefit — ‘mad-anugrahāya' (for my grace) — was the supreme secret designated ‘adhyātma' (pertaining to the ātman): namely, the discrimination between ātman and anātman. By that word alone, this moha (nescience manifesting as avidyā-born misidentification) has departed from me. Śaṅkara specifies: moha here is aviveka-buddhi — the intellect that fails to distinguish the changeless witness from the changing body-mind aggregate. The word operated not by giving new information but by dissolving the superimposition (adhyāsa) that was never real.
divergence: Śaṅkara: ‘mohaḥ ayaṃ aviveka-buddhiḥ apagataḥ’ — this moha is the intellect-of-non-discrimination, and it has departed. Source: panel_commentary_devanagari.
Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita
Arjuna speaks: dehātmābhimāna (the conceit ‘I am the body') is the form of the moha by which I was deluded — dehātmābhimānarūpamohena mohitasya mama. The entire teaching from na tv evāhaṃ jātu nāsam (BG 2.12) through tasmād yogī bhavārjuna (BG 6.46), spoken anugrahaikaprayojanāya — with grace as sole purpose — is paramaṃ guhyam, supremely secret, and adhyātmasaṃjñitam, designated as pertaining to the ātman, because it abides in the ātman as its subject-matter (ātmani vaktavyam). By that word, ayaṃ mama ātmaviṣayo mohaḥ sarvo vigataḥ dūrato nirastaḥ — this moha of mine concerning the self, every part of it, has gone, cast away to a distance. Vedānta Deśika glosses vigataḥ with its prefix as signifying savāsanaṃ niḥśeṣavināśa — destruction without remainder, root and residue both gone — and the further phrase dūrataḥ as indicating that even the saṃskāra (latent impression) is repudiated, apunaraṅkuram vinaṣṭam, destroyed so as never to sprout again. The paramaśabda qualifying guhyam is read against BG 10.38 (maunaṃ caivāsmi guhyānām) to mark a higher secrecy, consistent with the guhyatama-bhaktiyoga that forms the culmination of the middle six chapters.
divergence: Rāmānuja: anugrahaikaprayojanāya ... ayaṃ mama ātmaviṣayo mohaḥ sarvo vigataḥ dūrato nirastaḥ. Deśika extends: savāsanaṃ niḥśeṣavināśa and apunaraṅkuram vinaṣṭam — the saṃskāra itself is annihilated, not merely the active confusion. The paramaśabda is read as marking supersession of the guhyatva cited at 10.38. Source: panel_commentary_devanagari.
Madhvadvaita
Reconstructed from the dvaita school's doctrine, not translated from Madhva's commentary at this verse.
Mad-anugrahāya paramaṃ guhyam adhyātma-saṃjñitam | yat tvayoktaṃ vacas tena moho ‘yaṃ vigato mama — Arjuna declares that the moha (delusion) which had seized him is now gone, dispersed by Kṛṣṇa's speech given out of anugraha (grace) toward him. In Madhva's reading, as preserved through Jayatīrtha's expansion, adhyātma-saṃjñita (designated as pertaining to the ātman‘s own nature) is not merely a label of profundity but a pointer to svarūpa-sthiti — the jīva‘s established, eternally paratantra (dependent) nature. The supreme secret disclosed in chapters two through ten culminated at 10.42 in Kṛṣṇa's declaration viṣṭabhyāham idaṃ kṛtsnam ekāṃśena sthito jagat — the whole world sustained by a single fragment of his being — which is vyāpta-upāsana (meditation on pervasive lordship) stated only in brief. Brief statement does not yet admit stable dhyāna (meditation), because the mind cannot mount what it has not thoroughly apprehended. Chapter eleven now supplies, through Arjuna's actual vision, the expanded svarūpa-sthiti of that pervasive form — not a māyā-constructed apparition projected and dissolved, but the Lord's own svatantra (independently real, self-sufficient) sovereign form disclosed to a paratantra jīva capable only of dependent witness, never of identity. The pañca-bheda (five-fold real distinction) between Lord and jīva is not relaxed by the vision; it is confirmed by it: the jīva sees, the Lord is seen, and the bheda (real distinction) between seer and seen stands as the very structure of the revelation.
divergence: Madhva's bhāṣya (yathā śrute dhyānaṃ śakyaṃ tathā svarūpasthitir anenādhyāyenocyate) is a single functional sentence naming the chapter's purpose. Jayatīrtha's Nyāya-sudhā elaborates: the brevity of 10.42’s vyāpta-upāsana left the form insufficiently apprehended for real meditation, so chapter eleven supplies the full svarūpa-sthiti through extended vision; and svarūpa-grahaṇa explicitly rejects the reading that the Viśvarūpa was constructed by māyā and then dissolved. The doctrinal weight on paratantra-jīva as dependent witness and on pañca-bheda as the structure of vision, rather than its negation, draws on those explicit Jayatīrtha moves.
Vallabhaśuddhādvaita
Vallabha reads Arjuna's gratitude in three registers simultaneously: maryādā (the teaching bounded by scripture, ‘ahaṃ sarvasya prabhavaḥ’ BG 10.8), puṣṭi (the teaching as Bhagavān's own self-disclosing prasāda beyond maryādā), and their mixture. The moha removed was specifically ‘aiśvarya-ajñāna-rūpa' — ignorance of Kṛṣṇa's full aiśvarya (sovereign splendour). Hearing the word sufficed for moha-removal, but seeing the form is still desired — hence the request that follows. Vallabha marks: ‘māhātmya-nirūpakaṃ vākyam eva te śrutaṃ, na tu tathā svarūpaṃ dṛṣṭaṃ tavetiIt has been heard but not yet seen.
divergence: Vallabha: ‘mam gato mohaḥ aiśvaryājñānarūpaḥ ... māhātmyanirūpakaṃ vākyameva te śrutaṃ na tu tathā svarūpaṃ dṛṣṭaṃ.’ Source: panel_commentary_devanagari.
Śrīdharabhakti
Śrīdhara Svāmī opens with a benedictory śloka: Hari, out of supreme compassion (kṛpayā parayā), having proclaimed the glory of his vibhūtis, now showed Arjuna — who desired to see — the viśvarūpa. Arjuna's moha was specifically ‘ahaṃ hantā ete hanyanta' — the error of identifying the ātman as doer and as slayer, the very confusion targeted from BG 2.11 onward. The word spoken was ‘paramārthanisṭha' (grounded in ultimate truth) and ‘adhyātma-saṃjñita' as athma-anātma-viveka-viṣaya (the subject-matter of discriminating self from non-self). Moha has ‘vinaṣṭa' — not merely weakened but destroyed.
divergence: Śrīdhara: ‘mam ayaṃ mohaḥ ahaṃ hantā ete hanyanta ityādilakṣaṇo bhhramo vigato vinaṣṭaḥ ātmanaḥ kartṛtvādyabhāvokteh.’ HTML artifacts present in payload data stripped; Sanskrit content used directly. Source: panel_commentary_devanagari.
Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti
Madhusūdana opens with a maṅgalācaraṇa verse to his guru Kāśirāja, then characterises the teaching received as ‘tvam-padārtha-pradhāna' — centred on the meaning of the ‘tvam' (thou) in the mahāvākya ‘tat tvam asi.’ The moha removed was ‘nānāvidhaviparyāsa-lakṣaṇa' — manifold inversions of understanding — and crucially it was ‘anubhava-sākṣika': witnessed by direct experience, not merely by inferential acceptance. Madhusūdana quotes the range: from ‘aśocyān anvaśocas tvam' (BG 2.11) through the sixth chapter. The removal was total (‘vinaṣṭa') because the teaching was ‘paramakāruṇikena sarvajñena' — by the supremely compassionate and omniscient one, i.e. Kṛṣṇa as both jñāna-guru and beloved Bhagavān.
divergence: Madhusūdana: ‘mam anubhavasākṣiko vigato vinaṣṭo moḥaḥ ayaṃ nānāvidhaviparyāsalakṣaṇaḥ ... tvampadārtthapradhānaṃ yat tvayā paramakāruṇikena sarvajñenoktaṃ vacaḥ.’ Source: panel_commentary_devanagari.

ekras · bhāṣya

The supreme guhya called adhyatma which You spoke for my anugraha — by that, this moha of mine is gone. Arjuna names what just happened: the previous chapters' teaching dissolved his moha. The verse opens the chapter from the disciple's settled position.

Shankara reads the verse as Arjuna's confession that the chapter 10 vibhuti-yoga has done its work. Mat-anugrahaya — for my grace — names Krishna's motive; tena moho ayam vigatah — by that, this moha is gone — names the result. The disciple speaks from the cleared station; what comes next is no longer an interrogation but a request from one who has already received.

Madhusudana reads the verse as the proper preface to ch11. Arjuna acknowledges that what was given was anugraha, grace, not just teaching. The mohah named here is the same mohah named at 1.46 onward — the dejection that opened the Gita. The verse closes the long arc that began with the despair on the battlefield.

Ramanuja reads with characteristic warmth: the disciple's first speech in ch11 is gratitude. The supreme guhya called adhyatma was given as anugraha; the mohah has lifted. The disciple is now positioned to ask for the direct sight that the chapter will deliver.

Madhva reads on the bheda-frame: the eternally distinct jiva, having received the teaching, acknowledges its anugraha-character. The mohah-vinashana is Hari's gift, not the jiva's achievement.

Vallabha reads through pushti-marga: the prasada has flowed; moha has lifted; the disciple's settled gratitude opens the way for the darshana that ch11 will give.

Shridhara reads cleanly: anugraha given, moha gone, ground prepared.

Context

where

Chapter 11 · Viśvarūpa-Darśana-Yoga · meter anuṣṭubh

who speaks

Arjuna → Krishna

What's going on

The supreme secret you spoke to me out of grace, the teaching called knowledge of the self, has swept this delusion of mine away.

Vyavahāra · try it in your life

Viśiṣṭādvaita

In a relationship where you feel genuine gratitude for another's guidance, Rāmānuja's framing is useful: the entire arc of teaching — not just the memorable lines — was 'anugrahaikaprayojana,' grace as its sole purpose. When you acknowledge a mentor, acknowledge the full scope of what was given, not just the peak moments. And recognize that the moha removed was specifically about your own nature in relation to another — 'ātmaviṣaya moha' — not abstract metaphysical confusion.

Bhakti

Śrīdhara's framing of the moha as specifically 'ahaṃ hantā' — 'I am the doer, I am the destroyer' — locates the practical confusion: we suffer most not from abstract metaphysical error but from mislocating agency. The word that removes this moha in ordinary life is any clear perception that the action proceeding through you is not ultimately authored by you. This is not passivity — it is the corrective to the doer-conceit that generates guilt, pride, and reactive decision-making.

show all 6

Advaita

When a clear explanation — a teacher's precise words, a book's well-argued paragraph — suddenly dissolves a confusion you have carried for years, notice that the dissolving happened not because you learned a new fact but because the superimposition collapsed. This is the adhyātma mechanism: aviveka-buddhi departs when viveka is allowed in. The practical implication: don't stockpile more information when moha persists — find the one word that addresses the actual confusion.

Dvaita

Madhva's minimal comment points forward: the purpose of removing moha is to enable clear meditation on svarūpa-sthiti — what you actually are, in your own distinct nature, not what you've imagined yourself to be. Practically: when confusion about your identity clears, don't stay in the relief of clarity — use it as the ground for directed contemplation of your actual nature and your actual relationship to what is greater than you.

Śuddhādvaita

Vallabha's distinction between heard and seen applies to any deep understanding: you can intellectually grasp a principle (śruta) and still feel the pull to encounter it directly, face-to-face (dṛṣṭa). When you notice that gap — 'I understand this but haven't yet lived it' — that is not a failure of understanding. It is Arjuna's exact condition at 11.1, and the right response is to ask for the deeper encounter, not to pretend the hearing was sufficient.

Advaita-Bhakti

Madhusūdana's phrase 'anubhava-sākṣika' — witnessed by direct experience — is the standard that matters. It is not enough to assent to a teaching intellectually. The moha is gone only when something in you has directly experienced the departure. In practice: when a piece of wisdom lands differently on re-reading than it did the first time — when it moves from proposition to recognition — that is the anubhava-sākṣika threshold. The Kṛṣṇa of Madhusūdana is both the argument and the witness; the teaching that removes moha is both logically precise and devotionally alive.

Adhiṣṭhāna · substrate signature

substratev2.6-frozen

parserByT5-Sanskrit-multitask (Nehrdich/Hellwig/Keutzer EMNLP 2024)

mūlaGRETIL e-text of the Bhagavadgītā with Śaṅkara's commentary (data entry: Gaudiya Grantha Mandira) for chapters 1-17; sanskritdocuments.org sd_bgnew.itx for chapter 18; ingested via a local Ambuda TEI build; per-verse repairs logged in post_generation_repairs

show all metadata

weightsa=1 · b=0.01 · e_v=0.005 · z=0.2 · h=0 · th=0.01

anchorfit on Ramsukhdas's Sādhak Sañjīvanī (1980), frozen across the eight-commentator panel; cross-validated R@4 = 71.6% on Śaṅkara

extracted2026-04-21

methodPaper 1, Section II.B

↓ view raw per-verse object (JSON)↗ per-verse-object schema ↗ substrate code (MIT) + data (CC-BY 4.0)

The schema generalizes to any bounded-polysemy corpus with discrete primary text units, attested witness traditions, identifiable schools, and formal substrate. Port the per-verse object; refit weights on a domain-appropriate Layer-3 anchor; ship.

Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 11, Verse 1: Arjuna to Krishna — Viśvarūpa-Darśana-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports