Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 7, Verse 11: Krishna to Arjuna — Jñāna-Vijñāna-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  I am the strength (bala) of the strong — but only that strength which is stripped of kāma (craving for the unattained) and rāga (attachment to what is already held): the mere sattva sufficient to sustain body and sense-faculties in their function, never the strength that fuels the wheel of saṃsāra. Further, O best of Bhāratas, I am that desire (kāma) in beings which does not contradict dharma — the desire oriented only toward sustaining life through food, drink, and the like, not the tṛṣṇā (thirst) that binds the transmigrating soul.

  divergence: Śaṅkara explicitly distinguishes kāma as tṛṣṇā (thirst toward unattained objects) from rāga as rañjanā (clinging to what is obtained); he anchors the acceptable bala as dehādi-dhāraṇa-mātrārtha — exactly enough force for maintaining the body-complex and nothing more.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  All these distinctive modes — the strength of the strong, the desire unopposed by dharma — have arisen from Me alone; they subsist as My body (śarīra), owned by Me as their inner controller (antaryāmin), and so it is I who stand forth in their differentiated forms. The bala, the kāma, the very constitution of each being, is My śeṣa — a mode of My being, not an independent reality.

  divergence: Rāmānuja's bhāṣya for 7.11 is sparse in the payload but he explicitly summarizes the whole block (7.8–7.11): 'ete sarve vilakṣaṇā bhāvā matt eva utpannāḥ mac-cheṣabhūtā mac-charīratayā mayi eva avasthitāḥ.' The key moves — utpanna (originated from Me), śeṣabhūta (owned by Me), śarīratayā (as My body) — fully determine the rendering.

• Madhvadvaita

  From Hari alone flow the very natures (svabhāva) of rasa, bala, and kāma as the Gītā-kalpa testifies; yet He is never bound by them — He is their sovereign (niyāmaka), the supreme enjoyer (sāra-bhoktā) who pervades them without being sustained by them. The dharma-unopposed kāma, the kāma-rāga-free bala — these are upāsanā (meditation-objects): meditate on them as Vāsudeva, Lord of the worlds, not as autonomous forces.

  divergence: Madhva's bhāṣya covers 7.8–7.12 as a block and explicitly cites the Gītā-kalpa verse: 'rasādīnāṃ rasāditva svabhāvatve tathāiva ca / sāratve sarva-dharmeṣu viśeṣeṇāpi kāraṇam / sāra-bhoktā ca sarvatra yato'to jagad-īśvaraḥ.' The upāsanā orientation ('dharmāviruddhaḥ... ity-ādy-upāsanārtham') is explicit.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Even the power of action (kriyāśakti) that constitutes strength — Vallabha insists — is not a power moving toward worldly engagement (pravṛtty-ātmaka); it has been declared free of kāma and rāga, which marks it as Kṛṣṇa's own śakti in its pure form. And the kāma Kṛṣṇa claims is specifically that which does not oppose dharma — because in the world kāma is notorious as a dharma-violator, and this verse cleanly excludes that rajasika-tāmasika mode, preserving only the form that belongs to Kṛṣṇa's own līlā-nature.

  divergence: Vallabha's bhāṣya is brief but precise: 'kriyāśaktirūpaṃ tad-api na pravṛtty-ātmakam ity āha kāma-rāga-vivarjitam iti' and 'tathāiva kāmo'smi sa ca loke dharma-virodhi iti tad-vyāvṛtty-artham āha dharmāviruddha iti.' The seven-sevenfold differentiation note at the end refers to his broader enumerative scheme across this passage.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  The bala (strength) that belongs to the strong and that Kṛṣṇa claims is sāttvika strength — the capacity for svadharma-anuṣṭhāna (performance of one's own duty). Kāma is rājasika (desire for the unattained), rāga is tāmasika (the tṛṣṇā-class craving that clings even after attainment and reaches for more); both are absent from this bala. And the kāma that is Kṛṣṇa is specifically svadharma-approved: the desire of a householder for offspring through his own wife, for legitimate purpose only.

  divergence: Śrīdhara provides the clearest guṇa-mapping in the panel: 'kāmo'prāpte vastuny abhilāṣo rājasaḥ; rāgaḥ punar abhilaṣite'rthe prāpte'pi punar adhike'rthe citta-rañjanātmakas tṛṣṇā-paryāyas tāmasaḥ.' The svadharma-anuṣṭhāna gloss on acceptable bala is Śrīdhara's own contribution, not explicit in other bhāṣyas.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Kāma is that specific citta-vṛtti (mental modification) that takes the form 'let the unattained object be attained even without the means of attainment being present'; rāga is the complementary citta-vṛtti, rañjanātmā, that takes the form 'let what is obtained not diminish even when the cause of diminishment is present.' The bala that is Kṛṣṇa is utterly free of the rajas-tamas coloring these vṛttis carry, being purely sāttvika — the strength of those who are saṃsāra-parāṅmukha (turned away from transmigration) for sustaining dharma-performance. The dharma-unopposed kāma in beings — for spouse, children, livelihood as śāstra permits — is Kṛṣṇa himself: in Me who take this form, such beings are strung (prota).

  divergence: Madhusūdana gives the finest phenomenological analysis: kāma and rāga are defined as two distinct citta-vṛtti types with specific modal content (aprāpte... prāpye-tām; prāpte... na kṣīyatām). He makes the saṃsāra-parāṅmukha qualification of bala-holders explicit, and ends with the protatva (stringing) metaphor from the chapter's controlling image.