Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 11, Verse 43: Krishna to Arjuna — Viśvarūpa-Darśana-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  You are the pitā (father-generator) of this entire moving-and-unmoving creation — not as a personal deity distinct from it, but because no second īśvara (sovereign) is possible; two sovereigns would render worldly transaction incoherent. That there is none equal to (tvat-sama) you is not hyperbole but ontological necessity: the very concept of 'equal' presupposes a second, and no second Brahman exists. Your apratimaprabhāva (unmatched power) is therefore not a quantitative superlative but a marker that you transcend the very measure-space in which comparison operates.

  divergence: Advaita reads pūjya and guru not as relational roles Kṛṣṇa plays toward Arjuna personally, but as functions that flow necessarily from being the single non-dual ground of all existence.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  You are father and supreme guru (garīyān) of all moving and unmoving beings because you bear them as the body of which you are the inner controller (antaryāmin) — their origination, instruction, and final refuge are all contained within your kāruṇya (compassion) and its accompanying qualities. No other being in the three worlds equals you even in kāruṇya alone, let alone exceeds you; this renders you not merely the highest deity among many but the uniquely pūjyatama (most worthy of worship), to be approached through kainkarya (loving service) rather than mere obedience. The verse thus locates Arjuna's own surrender not in fear of cosmic power but in recognition that no teacher, protector, or parent outside this one Lord can adequately fill those roles.

  divergence: Where Śaṅkara grounds uniqueness in logical impossibility of two sovereigns, Rāmānuja grounds it in the qualitative incomparability of Bhagavān's relational virtues directed toward all souls.

• Madhvadvaita

  *Pitā* (progenitor) of the moving and unmoving, *pūjya* (worthy of worship), *gurur garīyān* (teacher beyond all teachers) — Arjuna's address to Kṛṣṇa names the three primary relations through which every *jīva* stands toward *svatantra* Hari: generated by him, instructed by him, worshipped before him. *Na tvat-samo 'sty abhyadhikaḥ kuto 'nyo loka-traye* — none equals, none exceeds, in all three worlds. In dvaita, this is not rhetorical hyperbole but ontological fact: *bheda* (real distinction) between Hari and *jīva* is permanent and irreducible, and the *taratamya* (graded hierarchy) places Hari alone at the apex, with every sentient and insentient being ranked below in descending degrees of *sāmya* (correspondence to divine qualities) without ever attaining equality. *Apratima-prabhāva* (whose power is without measure or equal) names the attribute that anchors this hierarchy — Viṣṇu's *śakti* is categorically incommensurable with that of any *paratantra* (eternally dependent) entity. Equality would sever the *pañca-bheda* (five-fold real distinction) that constitutes the real structure of existence; the verse forecloses that severance absolutely. The *jīva*'s proper posture is therefore *bhakti* as ontological subordination: the worship Arjuna now offers is not a temporary attitude but the permanent truth of what a *jīva* is in relation to Hari.

  divergence: Dvaita reads *na tvat-samaḥ* not merely as cosmological superlative but as the permanent seal on *jīva*-Hari *bheda* — equality is impossible not just now but in liberation (*mukti*) as well, where the *jīva* arrives at Hari's presence without dissolving into identity.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Vallabha reads pūjya and guru through the lens of sāttvika dharma confirmed in the aśvamedha and rājasūya rites — Kṛṣṇa is not merely the greatest among gods but the one in whom all dharmas are located (tvayi nirūpita), making worship not an obligation but a spontaneous overflow of recognizing whose prasāda (grace) sustains everything. The speaker (Arjuna, here cast as prākṛta — one still caught in natural embodied smallness) asks for kṣamā (forgiveness), knowing that any transgression is the prākṛta self's lapse, not a diminishment of Kṛṣṇa's supremacy. Puṣṭi-mārga's distinctive note: even the act of recognizing Kṛṣṇa's incomparability is itself Kṛṣṇa's own līlā flowing through the devotee.

  divergence: Śuddhādvaita alone introduces the kṣamā (forgiveness) frame here, framing the verse as an admission of the devotee's prākṛtic limitation rather than a philosophical argument for uniqueness.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Śrīdhara opens by naming *acintya-prabhāva* (inconceivable power) as the subject: *na vidyate upamā yasya so'pratimaḥ* — one for whom no comparison (*upamā*) exists is *apratima*; the vocative *he apratima-prabhāva* therefore addresses one whose power admits no likeness anywhere. From this, *tvam asya carācarasya lokasya pitā janako'si* — you are the father, the very progenitor (*janaka*), of this moving and unmoving world. Precisely on that ground, *pūjyaś ca guruś ca gurur api garīyān* — you are *pūjya* (worthy of worship) and *guru*, and indeed *gurūṇām api gurūtaraḥ*, weightier than any guru. Therefore, *loka-traye'pi tvat-sama eva tāvad anyo nāsti* — in all three worlds not even an equal to you exists, *parameśvarasyānyasyābhāvāt*, since no second supreme lord is to be found; the question *tvatto'bhyadhikaḥ punaḥ kutaḥ syāt* — of anyone greater, then, does not even arise. The vocative that opened the verse is itself the *bhakta*'s act of *śaraṇa*: to name him *apratima-prabhāva* is already to have bowed.

  divergence: The revised rendering is anchored directly to Śrīdhara's bhāṣya phrases — *na vidyate upamā yasya*, *janako'si*, *gurūṇām api garīyān*, *tvat-sama eva tāvad anyo nāsti*, *parameśvarasyānyasyābhāvāt*, *tvatto'bhyadhikaḥ punaḥ kutaḥ syāt* — rather than paraphrasing the argument from outside.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusūdana reads the verse as an unfolding of acintya-prabhāva (inconceivable power): Kṛṣṇa is father because he is janaka (world-originator), pūjya because he is sarveśvara (lord of all), and guru because he is śāstropadeṣṭā (the teacher behind all scripture-instruction) — three roles that in non-dual understanding belong to a single ground, yet are here expressed relationally for Arjuna's sake. The impossibility of any equal or superior follows necessarily: since a second paramparameśvara is ontologically absent, the very grammar of 'more than' breaks down. Yet Madhusūdana, unlike Śaṅkara, savors this impossibility bhakti-wise — the incomparability is not cold logical necessity but the devotee's lived astonishment at a reality that escapes all measure.

  divergence: Unlike pure Advaita's cold impossibility-argument or pure bhakti's relational warmth, Madhusūdana holds both: the non-dual ground is the very thing that makes the relational devotion inexhaustibly rich rather than ultimately illusory.