Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 16, Verse 17: Krishna to Arjuna — Daivāsura-Sampad-Vibhāga-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Those who are self-conceited (atma-sambhavita) — esteemed by themselves alone as possessed of all virtues, not by the wise — remain rigid (stabdha), bowing to none. Inflated by wealth and the pride and arrogance that wealth occasions, they perform sacrifices that are sacrifices in name only (nama-yajna), devoid of the prescribed auxiliary rites (vidhi-vihita-anga-itikartavyata) entirely absent. This they do through mere hypocrisy (dambha), bearing religion as a banner — not through faith or genuine renunciation that prepares the mind for knowledge of Brahman.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Self-congratulatory (atma-sambhavita) — they esteem themselves by themselves, convinced they are already complete, and so remain rigid, performing nothing of substance. The pride born of wealth and lineage-conceit generates an arrogance (mada) that leads them to offer sacrifices whose sole purpose is the name itself — 'I am a sacrificer, a soma-presser' — mere reputation, not genuine kainkarya (service) to Bhagavan. Even this hollow performance is done for the sake of display (dambha), to advertise their sacrificing status, and contrary to the injunctions (ayatha-codana), so no fruit accrues.

• Madhvadvaita

  *Ātma-saṃbhāvitāḥ* (self-conceited, those who esteem themselves as self-sufficient) — the very term names the demonic inversion: the *jīva* arrogating to itself the *svatantra* (independently real, self-sufficient) status that belongs to Hari alone. *Stabdhā* (rigid, unyielding) and *dhana-māna-madānvitāḥ* (possessed by the intoxication of wealth and honor) — these mark the *jīva* that has refused its *paratantra* (eternally dependent) nature and substituted the ego for the Lord. Such a one performs *nāma-yajñaiḥ* (sacrifices in name only), outwardly enacting ritual while the *bheda* (real distinction) between the worshipper and Viṣṇu is denied in practice: the worshipper in effect installs himself where Hari should stand. *Dambhena* (by ostentation) and *avidhi-pūrvakam* (contrary to injunction) — both terms converge on a single defect: without genuine *bhakti* as ontological subordination to *svatantra* Hari, no sacrifice reaches its telos. The *pañca-bheda* (the five-fold real distinction: Lord–*jīva*, Lord–matter, *jīva*–*jīva*, *jīva*–matter, matter–matter) is not a doctrine that can be set aside in the ritual moment; sacrifice performed in violation of Lord–*jīva* *bheda* is no sacrifice at all, producing only further bondage within *saṃsāra*. The *taratamya* (graded ontological hierarchy) that places Hari at the apex and every *jīva* in irreversible dependence is the very standard by which *yajante* here is exposed as empty form.

  divergence: No bhāṣya from Madhva or Jayatīrtha is transmitted for this verse. The reading voices Dvaita *siddhānta* directly from the *mūla*, applying *pañca-bheda*, *taratamya*, and the *svatantra*/*paratantra* axis to the verse's key compounds.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Vallabha's compact gloss confirms: they perform name-only yajna (nama-matra-yajna) — even in that they act through dambha (pretense), and even that pretense is without proper procedure (avidhipurvakam). In the Pusti-marga reading, the absence of Krsna's prasada-grace is the root: where there is no surrender to the Lord's lila, even ritually correct forms become empty husks; how much more so these, which lack even the form.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Sridhara specifies the earlier boast ('I will sacrifice') as the text's target: it was already clear that the asura's intent was driven by dambha (ostentation) and ahankara (ego-inflation), not by sattva. Self-esteemed (atma-sambhavita) means honored by themselves, not by any saint. Rigid and unyielding, they perform sacrifices solely for the name — 'he is an initiate, he is a soma-presser' — for mere public fame (nama-matra-prasiddhi), not from shraddha (genuine faith). The sacrifice without proper injunction and without devotion yields nothing.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusudana addresses an implicit objection: if these persons still perform Vedic rites like yajna and dana, how can their fall be justified? He answers precisely: 'atma-sambhavita' means they have conferred honor upon themselves as 'possessed of all virtues' — no genuine teacher or saint has recognized them. Their 'pride-inflation' (mana) is the superimposition of excessive honor on the self; their 'arrogance' (mada) is the corresponding contempt for others, even gurus. Their name-only sacrifices — mere title-acquisition, 'he is an initiate' — are devoid of required accessories (vidhita-anga-itikartavyata-rahita) and performed through hypocrisy (dharma-dhvajita), not shraddha. Therefore they reap no fruit.