Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 11, Verse 31: Krishna to Arjuna — Viśvarūpa-Darśana-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Tell me — who are you, O fierce-formed one? I bow to you, O chief among gods; be gracious. I wish to know you as the Primal Reality (ādi = that which is first-before-all-manifestation); for I do not comprehend your activity (pravṛtti = the spontaneous movement that is not caused by any prior lack).

  divergence: Śaṅkara glosses ādi as 'āditaḥ bhavam' — that which exists from the very beginning, i.e., Brahman in its nirguṇa aspect. Pravṛtti is parsed as ceṣṭā: purposive motion, which cannot belong to nirguṇa Brahman and so the question itself points to the tension between the saguṇa display and the nirguṇa ground.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Declare to me who you are — you who appear in this exceeding-terrible form (atighora-rūpa). I do not know the intention (abhiprāya) behind your activity. Tell me this, O Lord of lords; let my prostration reach you; be appeased — and reveal also your serene form (prasanna-rūpa).

  divergence: Rāmānuja's bhāṣya explicitly reads prasīda as a double petition: (1) be inwardly appeased toward me, and (2) let your outward form also become gracious (prasanna-rūpaś ca bhava). The question ko bhavān is not ontological ignorance but the devotee's need to understand the divine intention (abhiprāya) — why has Bhagavān revealed the saṃhartṛ-rūpa (the destroyer form)?

• Madhvadvaita

  Tell me who you are — not because I do not know your name (for I have already named you Viṣṇu and spoken of you as Akṣara), but in order to know your dharma in this mode of being (dharma-antara = the specific relational duty this form discloses).

  divergence: Madhva's bhāṣya is terse and diagnostic: the question ko bhavān is analogous to asking 'who are you?' of someone whose name one knows, in order to learn their jāti (relational category/nature), not their name. He points back to 11.18 (tvam akṣaram) and 11.30 (viṣṇo) as proof Arjuna already knows the identity — so the question is about dharma-antara-jñāna (knowledge of the alternate mode of duty this revelation entails).

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Therefore tell me — who are you, appearing in this terrible form, O best of gods? Be gracious (prasīda). I wish to know you as the Primal Person (ādi-puruṣa) in this frightening aspect which is unlike anything I have known; for your activity (pravṛtti) I do not understand at all.

  divergence: Vallabha's bhāṣya marks the phrase 'hे देववर प्रसीदेति' as Arjuna signaling his own fear (svasya bhītatvaṃ sūcayati). The ugra-rūpa is Kṛṣṇa's own līlā-form; it is not destruction as absence of grace but the very fullness of grace in its sovereign, world-reabsorbing mode. Arjuna's petition prasīda is a plea for the sweetness (mādhurya) of the familiar form to return.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Because things stand thus — tell me who you are in this fierce form. I bow to you; O best of gods, be gracious. I wish to know you in your primordial nature (ādi-puruṣa); for I do not know your activity (pravṛtti) — either your purpose in acting thus, or even the basic report of what you are doing.

  divergence: Śrīdhara introduces the verse with 'yata evaṃ tasmāt' — connecting it to the terror of 11.30 as a logical sequitur: because all this is happening, therefore ask. He offers a double gloss on na jānāmi tava pravṛttim: either (a) 'I do not know your purpose in acting this way,' or (b) 'I do not know even the basic report of your activity' — the second reading intensifying Arjuna's disorientation. The bhāṣya is philologically balanced, without the sharp doctrinal edge of Śaṅkara or Madhva.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Because you are thus fierce-formed — tell me, O all-teacher, who you are; for I, though utterly your dependent (atyanta-anugrāhya = one who is fit only to receive grace, not to demand), do not know your activity. I bow to you. O best of gods, be gracious — abandon this severity (krauryatāga = the relinquishing of the fierce mode).

  divergence: Madhusūdana's bhāṣya is the most self-consciously emotional of the panel. He glosses 'mah yam' as 'atyanta-anugrāhyāya' — to me, who is supremely a recipient of grace, making the bow not a ritual gesture but an admission of total dependence. Prasīda is unpacked as 'krauryatāgaṃ kuru' — literally 'enact the abandonment of ferocity' — and he adds the poignant gloss that even as sakhā (friend) Arjuna could not comprehend Kṛṣṇa's activity, marking the gap between the sakhā-relation and the guru-relation that the viśva-rūpa is now forcing.