Only the Lord can tell the Lord's own glories, and Arjuna asks him to hold nothing back.
Arjuna does not ask for a favorite few. He asks for the whole range of the divine glories, told without remainder, because he has understood something the commentators keep circling back to: no one but the one who possesses these glories could ever report them whole.
Please tell me in full, leaving nothing out, of your own divine manifestations, the glories by which you exist, pervading these worlds.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
You are standing with Arjuna at the moment his listening turns into a request. Krishna has just promised that knowing his glories in truth leads to unshakable devotion. Arjuna, wanting exactly that, asks for the whole account, leaving nothing out.
The teaching
Arjuna asks Krishna to tell, in full and without remainder, the divine glories of the Self, the very glories by which he pervades and stands in these worlds. This is not a request for a sample or a favorite few; it is a request for the entire range. Shankara's surviving comment ties the fitness to answer this request to the glories themselves: they are the Self's own, reaching through the vast expanse of the Lord's own greatness, so only he could ever report them whole. Sridhara sharpens the same point into a claim about knowledge: since you alone know your own self-disclosure, and not the gods and the rest, you alone are competent to speak it. Ramanuja hears the glories as the Lord's particular governings, the specific ways he rules, by which he stands pervading the worlds as their indwelling governor; to ask for them in full is to ask to see the field of his rule laid open. Across these readings the glories are never separate ornaments hung on a world that runs on its own. They are the very means by which the Lord fills these worlds, holds them, and remains present within them.
The doubt that rises
If even the gods and the sages cannot know these glories, what real use is a list of them to an ordinary seeker who is certainly not the Lord?
Where the paths divide
Read narrowly, from Shankara's own brief extant comment on this verse.
Shankara's surviving word here is spare but exact: fitness to tell the glories in full follows simply from their being the Self's own, reaching through the vast reaches of the Lord's own greatness. He does not, in this particular comment, extend the point into his larger argument about knowledge as the sole direct means to liberation. Read honestly, this verse's Advaita reading stays close to what the text actually says: only the possessor of a thing can report it without gap.
Read as the field of the Lord's governance made visible.
Ramanuja hears in the vibhutis the Lord's particular governings, the specific ways he rules, by which he stands pervading the worlds as their governor. The glories are not curiosities scattered through creation; they are the visible mode of an indwelling rule. To ask for them in full, on this reading, is to ask to see the field of the Lord's governance laid open rather than to collect an inventory of distant marvels.
Reported at the actual thinness of the extant source.
What survives under Madhva's name at this verse is a single line: the glories are his manifold powers of being. That is genuinely all the source offers here, and this reading says so rather than manufacturing a fuller argument. Within Madhva's wider system such powers would belong to the Lord's own unconditioned nature, never granted or borrowed the way a dependent self's capacities are, but that extension belongs to his broader teaching, not to his recorded word on this particular verse.
Honestly flagged: no extant comment exists here, so any reading offered is a clearly-labeled extrapolation.
Abhinavagupta's surviving Gitartha-samgraha offers no comment on this verse. Nothing should be presented as his own word for it. As a conditional bridge only, one consistent with his treatment of nearby verses, a Kashmir Shaiva idiom might hear the vibhutis as points where a single free, self-recognizing consciousness is caught manifesting itself as this or that excellence, and hear the request for them 'without remainder' as a wish to see the full range of that self-display. This is offered strictly as extrapolation, never as Abhinavagupta's recorded teaching.
Read through Sridhara's stated reasoning about who can and cannot know.
Sridhara grounds the whole request in exclusive self-knowledge: since you alone know your own self-disclosure, and not the gods and the rest, you alone are competent to speak these divine, more-than-marvellous glories in full. He adds a memorable observation: the praise here is a quiet binding of the Lord to his own gift, since only the Lord can speak of the Lord, and Arjuna is asking him to say of himself what no sage could ever say.
Read as an epistemic argument distinct from Madhusudana's own close restatement.
Madhusudana's own quoted words on this verse stay close to paraphrase: please declare, without exception, the divine glories by which you pervade and abide in these worlds. The sharper point associated with his name in the wider discussion is epistemic: glories belonging to the Lord's own self cannot be known by any knower short of omniscience, so the account that follows can only ever be a gift from the one who is all-knowing, never a discovery any other mind could have assembled.
Every reading here agrees that only the Lord can tell these glories and that the request is for the whole of them, without remainder. They part, where they say anything distinctive at all, on what the glories most fundamentally are: the Self's own greatness, the field of the Lord's rule, a bare naming of his powers of being, exclusive self-disclosure, or a gap only omniscience can close. And on one acarya, Abhinavagupta, the honest record is silence; this page keeps that silence visible rather than papering over it with an invented voice.
A question to carry
When something in the world strikes you as genuinely special, do you rest in the thing itself, or do you ask, as Arjuna asks here, to be told the whole of where it comes from?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
May you learn to ask for the whole of a teaching rather than a comforting fragment, and may you trust a source that tells you plainly when its own record runs thin, rather than one that fills every silence with a confident, borrowed voice.
Each school is voiced from the commentators named above. Their full words, every translation, and where the schools agree and differ wait in the reading desk just below. Open the commentary desk.
Krishna has just promised that whoever truly knows his glories and his yoga reaches unshakable devotion; here Arjuna's listening turns to asking, and his question calls forth the long roll of glories that fills the rest of the chapter.
Where they agreethe convergence
Across schools and centuries the commentators come to the same ground. These are the points they share, and the voices that hold each one.
Arjuna asks for everything, not a sample: the glories told without remainder, leaving nothing out.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara and Śrīdhara’s words
Arjuna asks for the divine glories to be told in full, without remainder, not as a sample but as the whole range of them. Shankara reads the verse as an acknowledgment of exclusive fitness to speak completely; Sridhara reads the same fitness as flowing from exclusive self-knowledge. Neither treats the request as excessive; both treat it as simply matched to what only the Lord can supply.
These glories are divine, non-ordinary, reaching through the Lord's own greatness rather than anything borrowed.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara and Śrīdhara’s words
These glories are called divine, which the tradition takes to mean non-ordinary, beyond the common run of things. Shankara locates them in 'the vast reaches of Your own greatness'; Sridhara calls them 'more-than-marvellous.' Both treat divinity here as a claim about origin and scale, not an honorific added for style.
No god or sage can know them fully; the request can only ever be answered by the one who possesses them.
Across Bhakti, AdvaitaŚrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śrīdhara and Madhusūdana’s words
Only Krishna is fit to tell these glories, because no one else can know them fully. Sridhara states this directly: the gods and the rest do not know his own self-disclosure. Madhusudana's associated reasoning sharpens it further: what belongs to the Lord's own self cannot be grasped by any knower short of omniscience, so the account can only ever come from him.
The glories are the very means of the Lord's pervasion of the worlds, not separate wonders added on top of it.
Across Advaita, ViśiṣṭādvaitaŚaṅkara · RāmānujaIn Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja’s words
The glories are not separate ornaments added to a world that runs on its own; they are the very means by which the Lord pervades and stands within these worlds. Ramanuja names them 'particular governings' by which Krishna rules as indweller; Shankara reads the same pervasion as reaching through the Lord's own greatness rather than through anything borrowed.
Where the extant record on an acarya thins to a single line, or falls silent altogether, the honest path is to say so plainly rather than to invent a fuller voice.
Across Bhakti, AdvaitaŚrīdhara · Śaṅkara · MadhusūdanaIn Śrīdhara, Śaṅkara, and 1 others’ words
Across every extant comment, however brief, the request itself carries a quiet logic that Sridhara states outright: since only the Lord can speak of the Lord, asking him to tell his own glories is asking him to say of himself what no sage, no god, and no other knower could ever say.
This is the shared ground; it can be carried as it is. Below is where they differ.
Where they differthe divergence
Viśiṣṭādvaita, in their fuller words
Ramanuja reads the vibhutis as the Lord's particular governings, the specific ways he rules, by which he stands pervading the worlds as their governor. The glories are the visible mode of his indwelling administration, so that contemplating them in full is contemplating the field by which he holds the worlds together, not a scattered inventory of marvels.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva's extant comment at this verse is a single, spare line: the glories are the Lord's manifold powers of being. The source does not develop this further here, so this reading is reported at its actual thinness; within Madhva's wider system such powers would belong to the Lord's unconditioned own nature rather than being granted or borrowed, but that extension is context, not his stated word on 10.16.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara grounds the request in exclusive self-knowledge: since you alone know your own self-disclosure, and not the gods and the rest, you alone are competent to speak the divine, more-than-marvellous glories in full. He adds that the praise quietly binds the Lord to his own gift, since only the Lord can speak of the Lord.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Read against the thinness of Madhusudana's own quoted words here, which mostly restate the verse, the substantive point credited to him in the wider discussion is a tight epistemic argument: glories belonging to the Lord's own self cannot be known by any knower short of omniscience, so the account can only come from the all-knowing Lord himself, as a gift rather than a discovery.
A few questions to carry
These ask for understanding, not recall; each answer is settled by the commentary itself.
For a second sitting
Carry this with youwhat stays
Sit for a moment with the shape of Arjuna's request before moving to the list it produces. He is not asking to be handed powers, and he is not asking for proof. He is asking to be told, in full, what only the Lord could ever say about himself. Notice, today, one thing that strikes you as genuinely special, and instead of resting the specialness in the thing itself, let the noticing become an asking: whose is this, really, and what would it mean to trace it home rather than simply enjoy it where it stands?
May you learn to ask, as Arjuna asks here, for the whole of a thing rather than a comforting fragment of it, and may you trust the one source honest enough to tell you when the record itself runs thin.
Read deeper
Everything a full study holds, folded below.
Word by word
All the commentary, woven together
The commentary, woven together
machine-assisted draft, pending review
Convergence
rjuna asks for the divine glories to be told in full, without remainder, not as a sample but as the whole range of them. Shankara reads the verse as an acknowledgment of exclusive fitness to speak completely; Sridhara reads the same fitness as flowing from exclusive self-knowledge. Neither treats the request as excessive; both treat it as simply matched to what only the Lord can supply.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
These glories are called divine, which the tradition takes to mean non-ordinary, beyond the common run of things. Shankara locates them in 'the vast reaches of Your own greatness'; Sridhara calls them 'more-than-marvellous.' Both treat divinity here as a claim about origin and scale, not an honorific added for style.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Only Krishna is fit to tell these glories, because no one else can know them fully. Sridhara states this directly: the gods and the rest do not know his own self-disclosure. Madhusudana's associated reasoning sharpens it further: what belongs to the Lord's own self cannot be grasped by any knower short of omniscience, so the account can only ever come from him.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The glories are not separate ornaments added to a world that runs on its own; they are the very means by which the Lord pervades and stands within these worlds. Ramanuja names them 'particular governings' by which Krishna rules as indweller; Shankara reads the same pervasion as reaching through the Lord's own greatness rather than through anything borrowed.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya
Across every extant comment, however brief, the request itself carries a quiet logic that Sridhara states outright: since only the Lord can speak of the Lord, asking him to tell his own glories is asking him to say of himself what no sage, no god, and no other knower could ever say.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara's extant note stays close to the request: fitness to tell in full follows from the glories being the Self's own, reaching through the Lord's own greatness. His comment here does not extend into the larger Advaita argument about knowledge as the sole direct means to liberation; it simply establishes that only the possessor of these glories can report them without gap.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja reads the vibhutis as the Lord's particular governings, the specific ways he rules, by which he stands pervading the worlds as their governor. The glories are the visible mode of his indwelling administration, so that contemplating them in full is contemplating the field by which he holds the worlds together, not a scattered inventory of marvels.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva's extant comment at this verse is a single, spare line: the glories are the Lord's manifold powers of being. The source does not develop this further here, so this reading is reported at its actual thinness; within Madhva's wider system such powers would belong to the Lord's unconditioned own nature rather than being granted or borrowed, but that extension is context, not his stated word on 10.16.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta offers no comment on this verse; the extant Gitartha-samgraha does not treat it. On a Kashmir Shaiva reading consistent with his treatment of nearby verses, one might extend his idiom to hear the vibhutis as points where a single free consciousness is caught manifesting itself as this or that excellence, but this is a clearly-labeled extrapolation, not his recorded word.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara grounds the request in exclusive self-knowledge: since you alone know your own self-disclosure, and not the gods and the rest, you alone are competent to speak the divine, more-than-marvellous glories in full. He adds that the praise quietly binds the Lord to his own gift, since only the Lord can speak of the Lord.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Read against the thinness of Madhusudana's own quoted words here, which mostly restate the verse, the substantive point credited to him in the wider discussion is a tight epistemic argument: glories belonging to the Lord's own self cannot be known by any knower short of omniscience, so the account can only come from the all-knowing Lord himself, as a gift rather than a discovery.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If even the gods and the sages cannot know these glories, what use is a list of them to an ordinary person like me, who is certainly not the Lord?
The point of the verse is not that you must independently verify the glories the way a scholar checks a source. Sridhara reads the request as resting on exclusive self-knowledge: only the Lord knows his own self-disclosure, so what reaches you is a gift handed down from the one knower there is, not a claim you are asked to reconstruct on your own authority.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Ramanuja's reading gives the list a use once it is given: the glories are the very field by which the Lord governs and pervades the worlds, so dwelling on them is dwelling on the mode of his presence, not memorizing a catalogue of distant wonders that have nothing to do with where you stand.
Rāmānujācārya
And the epistemic point associated with Madhusudana cuts the other way from discouragement: precisely because no knower short of the Lord could assemble such a list, its arrival is evidence that something has been given you could not have gathered yourself, which is itself a reason to receive it rather than doubt its relevance.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Contemplation
Sit for a moment with the shape of Arjuna's request before moving to the list it produces. He is not asking to be handed powers, and he is not asking for proof. He is asking to be told, in full, what only the Lord could ever say about himself. Notice, today, one thing that strikes you as genuinely special, and instead of resting the specialness in the thing itself, let the noticing become an asking: whose is this, really, and what would it mean to trace it home rather than simply enjoy it where it stands?
Sit with this · sonnet-5-authored
All the translations and commentary
Pull up a chair.
You have come to sit with this verse. When you are ready to hear the translators and the commentators in full, open a tradition in the doorways below, or add a voice by name above.
Also hear this verse, tradition by tradition.