Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 16, Verse 15: Krishna to Arjuna — Daivāsura-Sampad-Vibhāga-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  The asura declares: ‘I am wealthy (adhya), I am of noble birth (abhijanavan) — who else equals me?’ Shankara reads this triple boast (wealth, lineage, rites) as the symptom of avidya (ignorance) that mistakes the ksetra (body-field) for the atman. The deluded one announces ‘I shall sacrifice (yaksye), I shall give (dasyami), I shall rejoice (modisye)’ — but each vow is karma bound to ahankara, deepening bondage rather than dissolving it. Shankara's gloss on ‘ajnana-vimohitah' is precise: viviksam-aviveka-bhavam apannah — they have fallen into the state of non-discrimination, the exact opposite of the viveka that opens the jnana-marga.

  divergence: Advaita locates the error in ahamkara mistaking the field for the knower of the field.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Ramanuja stresses that the asura's error is not merely pride but Ishvara-nirapekshata — independence from the Lord's grace (anugraha). The boast ‘I am self-sufficient in wealth and lineage' is theological rebellion: the asura believes sacrifice (yajna), giving (dana), and pleasure are self-generated achievements, severed from Bhagavan's sustaining will. Ramanuja's gloss reads: svena eva yagas-danadikas kartum sakyam iti ajnana-vimohitah — they think ritual efficacy is wholly their own. This is the Vishishtadvaita inversion of kainkarya: instead of all action flowing toward the Lord as seva (service), it flows inward as self-aggrandizement.

  divergence: Vishishtadvaita uniquely names Ishvara-nirapeksha (grace-rejection) as the structural sin; Advaita names aviveka.

• Madhvadvaita

  Reconstructed from the dvaita school's doctrine, not translated from Madhva's commentary at this verse.

  The āsura (demoniac) jīva (the individual self) here declaims: āḍhyo ‘bhijanavān asmi ko ‘nyo ‘sti sadṛśo mayā — ‘I am wealthy, I am well-born; who else is equal to me?’ — and then asserts, ‘I shall sacrifice (yakṣye), I shall give (dāsyāmi), I shall rejoice (modiṣye).’ Each of these first-person assertions is ajñāna-vimohita (deluded by ignorance): the jīva mistakes itself for a svatantra (independently real, self-sufficient) agent, when in Dvaita siddhānta every jīva is irreducibly paratantra (eternally dependent) on Hari. Wealth, birth-lineage, the capacity to sacrifice and give — all are held under Hari's absolute sovereignty; nothing accrues to the jīva except by Hari's will. The pañca-bheda (the five-fold real distinction: Lord–jīva, Lord–matter, jīva–jīva, jīva–matter, matter–matter) is precisely what the āsura collapses into a false unity centered on the self: ‘none is equal to me' erases the unbridgeable ontological gap between Hari and jīva. The act of yajña (sacrifice), properly understood, belongs to Hari as its real kartṛ (agent); dāna (giving) is a conduit of Hari's bounty, not an autonomous human bestowal. To say ‘I shall sacrifice, I shall give' as if from self-generated capacity is to invert taratamya (the graded ontological hierarchy) entirely, placing the dependent jīva where only Hari rightfully stands. Ajñāna here is not merely ignorance of fact but the deep confounding (vimoha) that makes the paratantra jīva assert svatantratā — and this inversion is the defining mark of the āsura endowment catalogued throughout this chapter.

  divergence: The āsura‘s error is the claim of svatantratā (self-sufficiency) in kartṛtva (agenthood): yakṣye dāsyāmi modiṣye presents the jīva as self-moved agent in sacrifice and generosity, directly contradicting paratantra-hood. Dvaita names this the deepest tamasic inversion, since the jīva not only ignores Hari but usurps Hari's position as the sole svatantra kartṛ.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Vallabha's brief gloss on 16.14-15 pivots on the phrase ‘abheda-magrhya' — failing to grasp non-difference. In Pushti-marga all jivas are portions of Krishna's own bliss (ananda); the asura who boasts ‘Ishvaro'ham asmi' (‘I am the Lord') unwittingly speaks a truth — but it is a truth seized in ego rather than received as prasada. The word ‘modisye' (I shall rejoice) is exactly what Krishna promises his devotees through lila; the asura pursues the same bliss but through self-will (sveccha) rather than surrender (prapatti), turning krishna-prasada into ahamkara-bhoga.

  divergence: Shuddhadvaita alone finds tragic irony: the asura names the truth (‘I am the Lord') but seizes it without grace.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Sridhara parses each boast with characteristic precision: adhya means endowed with wealth and possessions (dhanadisampannah); abhijanavan means of noble family (kulinah). The vow ‘yaksye' (I shall sacrifice) is read as: through performance of great rites I shall win prestige (pratishtham prapsyami) over other initiated persons (dikshitantarebhyah). ‘Dasyami' is giving to flatterers (stavakebhyah); ‘modisye' is gaining pleasure — all three are about social standing and sensory reward rather than devotion. Sridhara's closing phrase ‘mithyabhinivesham prapitah' — brought into false tenacity — diagnoses the will locked in delusion as an act of self-binding.

  divergence: Sridhara adds ‘prestige over other initiates' as the specific social telos of yajna — absent in other bhashyas.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusudana doubles down on Shankara's reading but adds layers of social mockery. He notes the asura answers an internal objection — someone might be equal in wealth or lineage — then immediately denies it: ‘ko'nyo'sti sadrshah maya, na kopi' (who else is like me? no one at all). The three vows are then shown to be socially competitive: ‘yaksye — I shall outshine others by sacrifice; dasyami — I shall give wealth to flatterers and performers (natadibhyah); modisye — I shall take pleasure with dancing-girls (nartakyadibhih).’ Madhusudana renders ‘ajnanena avivekena vimohitah' as falling into a ‘cascade of delusion upon delusion' (vibhram-paramparam prapitah) — not a single error but a self-reinforcing spiral.

  divergence: Madhusudana uniquely specifies nartakyadibhih (dancing-girls) and vibhrama-parampara (cascade of delusions) — absent in all other bhashyas.